I thank Mundabor for pointing out the fundamental inconclusiveness in the Ruini report on Medjugorje as reported so far only by Andrea
Tornielli. It has to do with the three levels by which a local bishop may judge the authenticity of an alleged apparition (considered by
the Church as 'private revelations' that do not add to the Public Revelation of Scriptures). It may be useful to list these levels here:
The decision of the local bishop should be one of the following: 1) constat de supernaturalitate (established as supernatural), 2) constat de non supernaturalitate (established as not supernatural); or 3) non constat de supernaturalitate (not established as supernatural).
1. Constat de supernaturalitate. An apparition judged supernatural (formerly called worthy of belief) has manifested signs or evidence of being an authentic or truly miraculous intervention from heaven. This judgment is possible when there is evidence of supernatural phenomena, sound doctrine, moral probity, mental health and sound piety of the seer(s) and enduring good fruits among the faithful.
2. Constat de non supernaturalitate. The judgment that an alleged apparition has been shown to be not supernatural means it is either clearly not miraculous or lacks sufficient signs of the miraculous. Private revelation, for example, which is doctrinally dangerous or which manifests hostility to lawful authority could not come from God. It could even be demonic, especially if there are extraordinary signs accompanying it...
An attitude of pride and judgment toward the Church is a clear sign of his presence. An alleged revelation may also only be a pious rambling, consistent with faith and morals, but lacking evidence of being anything more than the product of human effort. No fraud need be intended, only an active imagination. Finally, it may be that the doctrine may be sound and there may be phenomena, but insufficient to demonstrate supernaturality. In this latter case, there would seem to be a possibility of revision.
3. Non constat de supernaturalitate. Finally, it may not be evident whether or not the alleged apparition is authentic. This judgment would seem to be completely open to further evidence or development.
From https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm
based on the CDF's 1978 "Norms of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Manner of Proceeding in Judging Presumed Apparitions and Revelations"
Medjugorje and no end of
deception, opportunism and confusion
May 17, 2017
The news is everywhere so I am sure you will be able to find the links yourselves: the Medjugorje commission has given the most ambiguous, non-answering answer to the scam of Medjugorje, and
the CDF has countered with its own, far more critical document. [I have not seen any report of a CDF document, only that Tornielli in his 'scoop' on the Ruini report, claims Cardinal Mueller is, in effect, totally skeptical about Medjugorje.]
Alas, the Church of V-II appears to have only one commandment:
Thou Shall Not Offend. [The Great Commandment of Political Correctness]
The commission bent over backward in the most extraordinary way, dividing the apparitions in two groups: the first set of “unannounced” alleged apparitions and the industry of the thousand of alleged apparitions afterwards.
In the first case, the majority (but not all, as Church Militant tell us is necessary) of the members consider the apparitions supernatural. There is no conclusion of
constat de supernaturalitate (evidence of supernatural intervention), because – again, according to what CM reports – for that, unanimity would be required. Therefore, even the first apparitions do not pass the test.
The second set of apparitions is destroyed as expected, though even in this case, our heroes stop short of issuing a
constat de non supernaturalitate (established as not supernatural). Rather, it seems to me their conclusion is
non constat de supernaturalitate (not evident to be authentic), but I will have to read more in detail.
In a third stunning turn of event, it is proposed to examine the possibility of making of the place a sanctuary, under control of the Vatican, because Medjugorje would encourage “spirituality” and blablabla.
Apart from the obvious rebellion of following a fake Blessed Virgin who says un-Catholic things earning the open condemnation of two bishops, the Church, with this train of thought, should establish Lutheran sanctuaries in all important places of Lutheranism (Erfurt, Wartburg, Worms, the lot), as there is no doubt Lutheranism has produced many very pious men and women.
The entire document is an exercise in absurdity: it implies the possibility that people may 1)see the Blessed Virgin and 2) subsequently be deceived by the devil, or by their own stupidity, or by greed, or by vainglory.
This is too stupid for words: any real apparition of the Blessed Virgin must be a transformative experience, it being inconceivable that the Blessed Virgin would appear to people of which she must know they will seed heresy and confusion afterwards.
“Let’s appear to these people”, this fantasy blessed virgin would think. “They will exploit me for decades afterwards and deceive countless people, but hey, it’s on them…” . Do the bishops not see how insulting and utterly stupid this is?
These obvious truths seem to escape most of the bishops in the commission, but they actually don’t. What is happening here is
a shameless attempt to find something good in a scam, because an awful lot of people who deem themselves spiritual happen to believe in it.
Don’t insult your intelligence thinking that these bishops have been deceived.
They are, as they always do, going with the flow, and are avoiding to rock a boat that would cause cries of indignation from a multitude of dumb fanatics in great need of a doctor and a reality check. Heck, Medjugorje is too stupid even for Pope Francis, what else do you need to persuade yourself of its absurdity!
What the bishops want to do is, in the best case, to embrace the crap, put it under the Church’s umbrella and let it slowly die of neglect and starvation and, in the worst case, to ride this easy wave of “spirituality”. This is wrong and cowardly. Deception must be denounced as such, instead of allowing countless souls to keep deceiving themselves.
A sanctuary for an apparition which is not acknowledged is truly too absurd even for this pontificate.
Then you can just as well made a sanctuary of both the Santiago Bernabeu and the Juventus stadium because millions of football enthusiasts are praying for Real Madrid’s or Juventus’s victory in the Champions League’s final. Really, the level of cowardice in front of every group of organised lunatics has reached levels unthinkable only some years before.
But then again no cardinals and only one bishop have spoken against Amoris Laetitia, so this is par for the course.
While I am as much in awe of supernatural experiences reported by many, many saints as I am by the apparitions that have been certified by the Church, I have also always thought that I never needed miracles to solidify the faith I had been born into and in which I was raised.
So my general reaction to reported apparitions such as those in Akita and in Medjugorje, to name the best-known of such contemporary events, has been "If the apparitions are truly divine in origin, then let us be thankful for them, and learn to 'discern' if the message they purport to convey is in accordance with the deposit of faith. Otherwise, the reported phenomena are probably fake and the work of the devil. Let us be thankful, too, for any positive spiritual fruits borne by such phenomena." The Ruini report - at least as reported by Tornielli - has not changed my position one bit.
Let me end my post by using Mundabor's blog icon, Fra Filippo Lippi's Madonna delle Rocce (Madonna of the Rocks):
Regina Caeli, Ora pro nobis!
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/05/2017 00:55]