Personally I have no prob with saying someone is not trustworthy (this can be reasonably construed to mean their views regularly turn out to be demonstrably fallible). Similarly, with a little charity, we could understand Maria's "he has concealed facts he was aware of" to mean the Abbe only gave one side of the story (which is not a sin, most of us with strong views do that on this forum from time to time to get our point across ). "[He] intentionally told things that are not true" is prob a tad over the top . No authority is to be treated as a god of course. But I would appreciate seeing material on which you base your conclusions Maria.
To say someone is untrustworthy, indulging in fraud and a bare faced liar is very,very, very far indeed from treating them like a God. Any more of it and It will be curtains for Maria. Curtains.
The Bible says it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God. The next worse thing is the scorn of Padraig
Picture of Pope Francis blessing another statue of Our Lady of Medjugorje: http://crownofstars.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/pope-blesses-another-medjugorje-statue.html Very present at the wedding celebrations afterwards was a special wedding gift given to one couple, a large statue of Our Lady of Medjugorje. The three-metre statue was put in a place of honour outside the Basilica and Pope Francis spent time in prayer before it and gave it his blessing. He has the study report....and he knows he's being watched...esp. in public.
You have a document about Rene Laurentin that deals with issues that you have set, unfortunately on the Croatian. I hope you know how to use google translator. http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=254 Regards
Padraig, following Rino Vegar's post I decided to do a bit of research on this "Rene Laurentin" chap whom I have never heard of. Now, while Maria may have been somewhat uncharitable, it appears there is very reasonable support for her contention that Fr. Laurentin's views are indeed untrustworthy. Whether that also makes him a bald faced liar (or just overzealous and one-eyed) is for God to judge not us. But what does seem certain is that the Bishop of Mostar, amongst other professionals, has essentially stated this in writing and backed up his assertions with evidence. As Aquinas said, arguments based on authority are the weakest. In the end it doesn't matter even if he is, allegedly, the world's top Mariologist.
I am surprised you have never heard of Laurentin., Blue. Read some of his books, ou are in for a real treat. It may you give your a deepr understanding of the man and his true worth. He is a genius and very holy as well as being a superb , very readable write.
I am just curious Blue, yuo referred to Rene Laurentine as a , 'Chap'. I have never met anyone before who calls people , 'Chaps' . It reminds me of Public Schools and the upper classes. Would you normally call people, 'Chaps? ' It sounds very Biggles, RAF and all in it together.
As Aquinas said, arguments based on authority are the weakest. The brilliant Laurentin specialized in Thomas Aquinas. If one is not permitted ever to be uninformed then one could also make such an accusation of untrustworthiness about St. JPII when it came to what he knew about the founder of the Legionaries. And of course we know this man too and his holiness.
You are right Padraig, I should have heard of him given what I have discovered about him. What would you regard as his most representative work? Actually I have read of him but without joining the dots. He was an intellectual opponent of Fr Raymund Brown (whom I have studied and have been to his lectures) in Biblical Studies. Fr Raymund Brown had to spend some time refuting the exaggerated and erroneous claims that Fr Laurentin propagated against him wrt Mary's Virginity and even the Resurrection in the 1980s. No doubt he was sincere but this sort of understandable political tactic, even for a good cause, is not the stuff of heroic virtue. It seems the leopard hasn't changed its spots. He may be a leading Mariologist but the same could prob not be said when it came to Catholic Biblical Exegesis. He and Brown could not see eye to eye on clear Biblical evidence for the Catholic Virginity Dogma (which both held to). Fr Laurentin proffered many Biblical texts as clear evidence of widespread NT understanding of this truth. Fr. Brown refuted this "scholarship" as, in most part, anachronistic wishful thinking, seeing in most of those Biblical texts things that the authors could not reasonably be judged to have intended or meant. It was a clash of Catholic world-views, Laurentin of a traditional exegesis wanting to see ancient Church Teaching clear cut in the NT, Brown unwilling to posit any more than the historical, hermeutical/exegetical approach would literally allow. Brown was not phased that modern Catholic Tradition may not be able to always find explicit historical or theological support in Scripture. It seems Laurentin, with a strong sense of the numinous, somewhat character assassinated Brown by effectively saying he was the same as the Protestants (eg Bultmann). That is, like Bultmann he implied that Brown, on principle, did not believe in miracles. Therefore he felt that this is the reason why Brown's historical Scriptural exegesis would never find evidence for belief in physical Resurrection or Mary's Virginity in Scripture. We have the same healthy tension on this Forum and it can be found throughout Catholic history from what I can see. I like Charlie J's approach to this problematic... beware of gilding the lily when it comes to Faith.
One can surely be both very holy and very mistaken? One is about the perfection of charity, the other of knowledge.
Fair suck of the sav Padraig - we use lots of expressions DownUnder that our Mother countries would no doubt find unusual . I find the same thing when I am in Malaysia or Singapore where a sort of Victorian? English that disappeared in the Mother country can still be read in the paper. Lots of blokes there with names like Percival, Cedric etc. Well, chocks away, we have a wee man coming over to weed the garden .
Fr Laurentin was not the only one who did not see eye to eye with Fr. Brown: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=525 http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/04/was-fr-raymond-brown-liberal-modernist.html
I haven't been able to find anything about Fr. Laurentin approving the volumes of Vie d'Amour. All I've seen referenced is "For theChurch it proved to be a classic example of how visionary revelations incline to deviancy (Laurentin and Sbalchiero 2007:1276)
Fr. Laurentin wasn't an "intellectual opponent" of Fr. Brown as much as a doctrinal opponent. His argument was not based on competing mental exercises but on authentic and thus reasonable sources of scripture without the personal conjecture and speculation.
Acceptance of other items re: private revelation without similar gestures of approval: Read the article and the evolved history of the questions asked of Fr. Laurentin show that his opinions and offerings were correct even if attempted to be discredited at the time.
Thank you, hope, for these links which serve as an excellent rebuttal of BHs criticism of Fr Laurentin. As being at the forefront of the spreading of reliable information about contemporary apparitions and locutionists, Fr Laurentin was inevitably going to be persecuted big time. Like Padraig, I'm somewhat amazed that BH could find himself commenting on these topics without having even heard of Fr Laurentin! Some studying of these matters in a wider environment than BH has been previously looking is needed I think.