Saturday, 12 April 2014

MEDJUGORJE PILGRIMAGE AND PRIVATE REVELATIONS....


MEDJUGORJE PUNDITS HAVE DECEIVED THE FAITHFUL

..now one sees if they look through the lense of perspicacious scrutiny blatant extirpation of TRUTH has occured....

..the faithful have been deceived and led into scandal against the Bishop of MEDJUGORJE as well as the Vatican....

According to many proponent sites which promote the MEDJUGORJE pilgrimage phenomenon the dissemination of private revelations does not require any approval from the Church since due to an erroneous interpretation of a 1966 decree it is claimed to wit...


..and so they falsely lead people into a false sense of security...telling the faithful that no permission is necessary for the seers of medjugorje to spread their messages..however this is a lie...



According to a decree in 1966 by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine and the Faith, seers do not need ecclesiastical approval for private revelations:

A. Ecclesiastical permission is not required for publication of revelations, visions, miracles or for the
frequenting of non-recognized places of apparitions.

A decree of the "Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine and the Faith" was published in the "Official Acts of
the Holy See" (A.A.S.) 58/16, dated December 29.1966.

Articles 1399 and 2318 of Canon Law are abrogated by this decree.

This decree of abrogation was approved October 14, 1966 by His Holiness the Sovereign Pontiff Paul VI. who ordered at the same time its publication.

This approval by the Holy Father took place during an audience accorded to His Eminence Cardinal Ottaviani,
Pro-Prefect for the "Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine and the Faith."

The decree was made in Rome. November 15, 1966. It bears the signatures of:

A. Cardinal Ottaviani. Pro-Prefect

P. Parente. Secretary

The decree took effect three months after its publication, hence on March 29.1967.

Canon 1399

The Canon 1399 forbade by right the publication of certain books such as those that deal with revelations, visions, prophecies and miracles.

This Canon has been repealed. This means that as far as these publications are concerned, the prohibition is lifted as to their being bound by ecclesiastical law. This means that henceforth: Catholics are permitted without need of Imprimatur, or of NIhil Obstat. or any other permission. to publish accounts of revelations, visions, prophecies and miracles. Of course these publications must not put in danger the Faith or the Morals: this is the general rule which every Catholic must follow in all his actions, even journalists. especially Journalists.

There is hence no longer any prohibition concerning the narrative of seers. be they recognized or not by Ecclesiastical Authority.

All the more reason is it permitted for Catholics to frequent places of Apparitions, even those not recognized by the Ordinaries of the diocese or by the Holy Father Granted that the Catholic visitors who frequent these places must respect the Faith and the Morals. However, they are not subject to any ecclesiastical discipline, not even for their public prayers.

Permission is required only for the celebration of Holy Mass or any other religious service.

Canon 2318

Canon 2318 carried penalties against those who violated the taws of censure and prohibition.

This Canon is abrogated since 1966. None can incur ecclesiastical censure for frequenting places of Apparitions even those not recognized by the Ordinaries of dioceses or by the Holy Father.

Also. "those who would have incurred the censures treated in Canon 2318 will be like absolved by the very fact of the abrogation of this Canon." (Cardinal Ottaviani)

So the visionaries do not need the permission of the Bishop of Mostar to make public their private revelations


…HOWEVER THIS IS MANIFESTLY FALSE!!!!


To claim as many proponents of the medjugorje phenomenon do that the BISHOP has no authority is formally schismatic and if voluntarily  believed for that matter may cause one eventually to become excommunicated from the Church a jure latae sententiae..which means by transgressing the law of the Church by letter through a misdeed in an ipso facto manner which states…


CCC-2089Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."


…members of the Church in communion with the Roman Pontiff would include the Bishop of MEDJUGORJE…


..when one excommunicates oneself in such a way they remove the efficacy of grace as it flows from the sacramental life..in effect it cuts one off from the living water of the Church..true such an excommunication can be removed through confession however if this is not recognized the state of one’s soul in this frame of being is effectively stultified..stunted so to speak..and places one in grave danger of being cut off from eternal salvation by the sin of presumption which is a sin against the HOLY GHOST…



as Aquinas say in his Summa Theologica
second Part of the Second Part Question 5

Article 3 . whether a man who disbelieves one article of faith, can have lifeless faith in other articles

 
I answer that, Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.

...and so it follows that those who do not follow the Bishop at Medjugorje or respect his office but who hold to their own rule do not exercise faith but only an opinion in accordance with one's own fancy...

The correct rendering of the Church regarding the dissemination of private revelation falls under Canon 823 and 824 which call for the review of any private revelation to fall under the jurisdiction of the local Bishop the Bishop’s Conference or the Vatican itself…


Now there never has been any permission given at Medjugorje for anyone to spread these messages..this is obdurate refusal to abide by the Canons of the Church and so results in schism and heresy…


The correct rendering of the stance of the Church regarding private revelation is as follows…


Publication of PRIVATE revelation

On October 23, 1995 the CDF clarified about private revelations:

With regard to the spreading of texts of presumed personal revelations, the Congregation makes it clear that:

1. The interpretation by some people of a decision approved by Paul VI on October 14, 1966, and promulgated on November 15 of the same year, by virtue of which writings and messages coming from presumed revelations might be freely spread within the Church IS ABSOLUTELY NOT VALID. This decision actually referred to the 'Abolition of the Index of Banned Books,' and said that - once relative censures were lifted - the moral obligation in any case not to spread or read those writings which endangered faith and morals still remained.

2. A reminder, therefore, that for the diffusion of texts of presumed private revelations, the norm of the Code in force, Canon 823, para 1, which gives pastors the right 'to demand that the writings of the faithful which touch faith or morals be submitted to their own judgment before publication', remains valid.

3. Presumed supernatural revelations and writings which regard them are in the first instance subject to the judgment of the diocesan bishop and, in particular cases, to that of the episcopal conference and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

It is a misconception that the faithful do not need permission to publish alleged private revelations since the abolition of Canon 1399 and 2318 of the former Canonical Code by Pope Paul the VI in AAS 58 (1966) on October 14, 1966. The truth is that Pope Paul VI only abolished the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, and that Canon 823 and 824 of the current 1983 Code of Canon Law define the right and duty of the bishop to censor all material concerning faith or morals.

The canonization of a mystic or an imprimatur given to a book of revelations do not mean a private revelation is authentic, because the church does not pronounce on alleged revelations when it pronounces on the holiness of an individual and because the Imprimatur only guarantees that a book is free from all doctrinal and moral errors



..let us lead each other by the light of truth so that we may abide one another in the grace of God.....amen