Yet, Peter said what he said and we are all bound to follow that statement. Archbishop Arguelles has been perfectly obedient to lawful authority. As for the rest of us, it is very easy to 'lay down the law' about who should be obeying who. Sister Faustina and Padre Pio were utterly faithful in their obedience to their legitimate superiors. You are extending the requirements of obedience well beyond legitimate authority. Your prime concern is CONTROL. That is not the way of Jesus.
When I was child and first heard about apparitions. At the time it as Fatima, Lourdes and Knock. I remember asking my mother how does the Priest know the visionaries are telling the truth. My mothers reply was, the Priest will pray and ask God for a sign so he will know it is a genuine apparition. I believed what I was told, and thought this must be how the clergy know the truth. When I first heard about Medjugorje, I remember reading that the parish Priest there, when he heard of what was happening, went into the Church and was praying for guidance before the Blessed Sacrament. While he was in prayer, he distinctly heard a voice say "go and protect the children." He got up and went to open the door to leave the Church; as he did so, the visionaries were running for cover from the communists. He did protect the children, and paid a high price for it. To this day, I take that testimony as a genuine old fashioned procedure in discerning the truth, and respect those who hold a different view. Padre Pio was silenced for a time; but the people never deserted him. Divine Mercy was silenced for a time; but the Lord prophesied this would happen. It sickens me to hear Bishops and Cardinals chop and change. Are we to believe the Holy Spirit can't make His mind up. Are we to believe some Bishops have more influence with God and are privy to His Truth while others are not. In the case of Divine Mercy it was made clear that the reason for silencing to begin with was because of poor translation which altered the meaning of what was found in the Diaries of Sister Faustina. What excuse have some of these other clergy men got for all this confusion. We need a new saint/prophet to sort out all this mess.
It is a merry go round when the local Bishop is just now being notified of a decision made back in 1951 with a lot of confusion since then, and months after the approving decision by the local Bishop was made. This is an old private revelation that has been in the news for quite some time. Now, after the encouragement of the faithful who were quite involved, whammo. Pope Francis' big push is for pastoral attention in everything and involvement "on the street". And what this has to do with people "searching after this and that visionary" is for somewhere else but not for this discussion. If something is stated for the local faithful as approved they have every right to have what is coming to them as a bit of a shock explained right away....not after they have been encouraged to believe. And, sorry, but private revelations have been and will continue to be enhancements to scripture and giving hope especially to the poor. It would be interesting to discover what, if any of the standard rules were followed in notifying the local Bishop when the usual authority of the Bishop for such matters was originally taken out of his hands.
Julia and David, This is an excerpt from an article by Fr Peter Joseph of Wagga Wagga, Australia, on private revelation. He has a doctorate in dogmatic theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, is the editor of the revised version of Archbishop Sheehan’s "Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine" (Saint Austin Press 2001) and is currently the Chancellor of the Maronite Diocese of Australia: "Everyone is free to have an opinion, but all have to submit to the judgement of the Church with practical obedience. What I mean is: you are still free to disagree (the Bishop is not infallible in this matter), but you owe him practical obedience, that is, you may not act against the decree; you may not propagate a revelation that the Bishop has judged negatively, or continue to say publicly that you regard it as genuine. Remember, a Church commission may give a negative verdict for reasons which it cannot state publicly, e.g., it may have found out things against the character of the seer, but will not say so publicly, even though this would justify the decision and help people to accept it. "If a so-called message is judged not authentic for doctrinal reasons, then you are not free to defend such messages, because then you will be defending error... "Can you say publicly that an approved revelation is not genuine? Yes, if you want to. The Church never orders you to accept any private revelation. But any such disagreement should be voiced respectfully. Caution never does harm "The simple fact is that most claimed revelations are false. It is extremely foolish, therefore, to devote oneself to propagating a disapproved or dubious message, which might actually come from the Father of Lies. If one day you see its falsity for yourself, you will regret it enormously, and be unable to undo the harm done to others. On the other hand, there are more than enough approved messages to spread, if you want to spread them. It is better to keep to what is countenanced by the Church, than to go it alone and risk being a dupe of the devil."
From the same author: "The authority to judge and the duty to obey "No private individual has the authority to judge definitively and officially which private revelations are true and which are not. The authority to rule on the genuineness of a private revelation rests first with the local Bishop. The apparitions of Lourdes, Knock, Fatima, Beauraing, Banneux - to name only a few - were approved by the local Bishops. The Popes of the time never issued any judgement on them. The current canonical practice is that the local Bishop must appoint a committee to investigate and rule on any private revelation (if he thinks it worthy of investigation), but the Holy See may intervene if necessary or if the Bishops ask it to. Alternatively, he may ask the Episcopal Conference of his country to assist in the investigation and judgement. It is forbidden, as well as sinful, to propagate private revelations which have received a negative judgement from the local Bishop, the conference of Bishops, or the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Some people say, "I’m going to follow it until the Pope says it’s false." This is a useless guide for action in this matter - very rarely does the Pope make a pronouncement for or against a revelation. As for statements attributed to the Pope (e.g., "I heard that the Pope told Mrs Smith after Mass in his private chapel that he believes in Garabandal and Bayside;" "The Pope told Jack that he could go ahead and print that condemned book") - no one is entitled to act on such gossip. The Church is governed by publicly promulgated statements - not by hearsay and personal communications. The Popes may choose to show their approval of certain revelations, after the decision of a local Bishop or conference of Bishops, by speaking of them, or by placing a new feast in the liturgical calendar, or by visiting the places intrinsically connected with them (e.g., Guadalupe, Paray-le-Monial, Rue de Bac, Lourdes, Knock, Fatima, Beauraing, Banneux). Even should the local Bishop mistakenly disapprove of a genuine revelation, obedience to the Church remains paramount. It is a sin to propagate a private revelation disobediently, but it can never be a sin not to propagate one. This applies both to claimed seers and to followers. In fact, if an alleged visionary disobeys a legitimate order from the Bishop, and claims God’s backing for the action, this is a sure sign that the message is not from God. Even if a genuine private revelation has been given, not even God Himself would want or command a seer to spread it against a lawful decree of a Bishop to desist. In fact, there are occasions in the life of St Teresa of Jesus of Avila (died 1582) and St Margaret Mary (died 1690) and Sr Josefa Menendez (died 1923) where Our Lord gave them a directive, but then their superior forbade it. What did they do? They obeyed their human superior on earth. What did Our Lord then tell them? -‘You were right to obey my representative.’ On one occasion, the Sacred Heart of Jesus told St Margaret Mary to do something, but her Superior did not approve. When He came again, she asked Him about this, and He replied: "…not only do I desire that you should do what your Superior commands, but also that you should do nothing of all that I order without their consent. I love obedience, and without it no one can please me" [Autobiography of St Margaret Mary]. Spiritual writers have an axiom: A Superior may or may not be inspired by God in his command, but you are always inspired in obeying. (Of course, we’re not talking about where a Superior commands a sin; and, as I said above, it is not a sin to drop a private revelation). Satan may really promote good things for a while, provided that he gains in the long run. The revelations of Necedah, Wisconsin, seemed to have good fruits, yet were false. Rosaries were said to change to gold. Similarly for Bayside. But disobedience showed them false. St Margaret Mary was told by Our Lord: "Listen, My daughter, and do not lightly believe and trust every spirit, for Satan is angry and will try to deceive you. So do nothing without the approval of those who guide you. Being thus under the authority of obedience, his efforts against you will be in vain, for he has no power over the obedient" [Autobiography]. After error itself, the mark of a false mystic is wilfulness and disobedience. I love this quote from Saint Faustina Kowalska: "Satan can even clothe himself in a cloak of humility, but he does not know how to wear the cloak of obedience." (Diary, par. 939). Genuine mystics, like Saint Pio of Pietrelcina (Padre Pio), are models of obedience. They never pretend to set up Christ against His Church.
More straw men. Who the heck is saying anything about not obeying what has been authoritatively given....even as sloppily handled as this?? It's just in this case, obviously, unless you missed the "surprise" here, the people were made to feel confused....nothing more that would even suggest the necessity for a lecture about "sacrifice", etc. And where is it clear that anyone "misused" his authority? Sounded more like a whole lot of years of miscommunication or at least confusion within the various levels of authority involved. As Peter B suggests, there is more to be had for comprehending how this process was handled. So no need to begin unqualified assumptions about others.
Of course he is a lawful authority. But the million dollar question is, authority to do what? Pope Francis is slowly trying to teach the heads of the various Vatican departments that their job is to serve, not to rule. The CDF is there to guide the faithful. Unfortunately it has so often focused on its power to command.
I can't believe that people here are dissing Cardinal Muller for doing his duty, as though the CDF were just some ad-hoc committee. The Catholic Church is not a democracy where the faithful are polled to get a majority decision on what is worthy of belief. I sincerely hope that Pope Francis isn't proposing that we follow the Protestants down that route.
If you don't know about this apparition, then why the strident comments about it? Maybe you should have read up about it first and then started typing your opinion.
Obviously the CDF document is binding in canonical terms, and nobody - including Abp Arguelles - is disputing this. That's not the issue here. The question is trying to understand the sequence of events leading up to this latest statement, which in historical terms is extraordinary, as I cannot find a precedent for such a nullification (although there can always be a first time...). Here it seems that we need more information than what is available at the moment, as procedurally this is all far from clear. Looking again at the scanned document of Abp Arguelles, it really is difficult to say anything without having the complete 16 paragraphs from the CDF. As it stands (in isolation), the text cited is quite strange, because as far as I can see, nobody until now has either claimed that the April 11, 1951 ruling was definitive or that it bore the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. The words 'until final decision on the matter will come from the Holy See' (see below) would prima facie even appear to contradict this. The Vatican did finally make a statement upholding the 1951 decision in 2010, but this is not appealed to in Abp Arguelles' letter. Several questions therefore need to be asked in order to understand more fully what is going on here: i) has the CDF issued the present decree on the basis of the Papal authority of the 2010 statement, and if so, why is this date not cited directly in the letter? Is it cited in some other portion of the CDF communication that Abp Arguelles has neglected to quote? Obviously I have no answer to this last question. ii) if the CDF ruling is based on the Papal authority of the 1951 Bishops' declaration alone (i.e. without reference to 2010), has new documentation emerged showing that the Vatican did indeed approve that declaration at the time? This is an important question, because the extant information seems to indicate the contrary. iii) if it was already self-evident that the 2010 declaration carried direct Papal authority, how was it that Abp Arguelles was able to approve the Lipa apparitions in September 2015 (with considerable media attention following) without any immediate protest from Canon lawyers? Why has this reaction from the CDF only appeared now, after many articles in the international press during the intervening months reporting Lipa as the 17th Marian apparition to be officially approved by the Church? Here is the April 11, 1951 text as reprinted at http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/statements/lipa_statement_1951.html , accompanied by an initial comment from the website. Emphasis mine. Although veneration of Our Lady Mediatrix of all Grace was permitted by Bishop Verzosa, the Philippine church hierarchy declared on April 11, 1951 that “there was no supernatural intervention in the reported extraordinary happenings including the shower of rose petals in Lipa.” The statement also contained the contentious phrase 'until final decision on the matter will come from the Holy See'. Bishop Rufino Santos, who became apostolic administrator after Bishop Verzosa, ordered that 1) no petals be given to anyone by the Lipa Carmelite community; and 2) the statue of Our Lady of Mediatrix be withdrawn from public view. April 11, 1951 We, the undersigned Archbishops and Bishops, constituting for the purpose of a special Commission, have attentively examined and reviewed the evidence and testimonies in the course of repeated, long, and careful examinations, have reached the unanimous conclusion and hereby officially declare that the abive mentioned evidence and testimonies exclude any supernatural intervention in the reported extraordinary happenings - including the shower of petals at the Carmel of Lipa. Manila, April 11, 1951 (Signed) Gabriel M. Reyes Archbishop of Manila (Signed) Mariano Madriaga Bishop of Lingayen (Signed) Cesar M. Guerrero Bishop of San Fernando (Signed) Juan Sison Auxiliary Bishop of Nueva Segovia (Signed) Vincente Reyes Auxiliary Bishop of Manila (Signed) Rufino Santos Apostolic Administrator of Lipa Manila, 11 April 1951 Concordat cum originali (Signed) Egidio Vagnozzi (Apostolic Nuncio) Source: June Keithly-Castro "Lipa" (1992) Appendix B
Two other important documents written by Abp Arguelles also merit close reading for anyone wishing to probe further into this case. The first dates from 2010, subsequent to his learning from the CDF of the Vatican's upholding of the 1951 'not supernatural' ruling on the 1948 Lipa apparitions: _______________________________________________ Statement from Archbishop Ramon Arguelles, DD, STL On September 28 before my visit to Montegiorgio, the hometown of the First Bishop of Lipa, I had a meeting with two key personalities of the Holy See's CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH. I asked for this meeting in my March 24, 2010 letter to the Congregation explaining why I was invited to speak in Rome on March 25, 2010, not on the Mediatrix of All Grace of Lipa but on the proposed Fifth Marian Dogma: Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. It was a very influential archbishop from the Philippines who was invited to the said meeting organized by the review INSIDE VATICAN. He passed it on to me, claiming I was the proper person speak on behalf of the many Philippine bishops supporting the proposed Marian Dogma. Indeed on that occasion I was not asked to speak on Lipa although almost all my Marian Conferences everywhere had references thereto. Nevertheless I eagerly looked forward to that meeting with the Congregation to know the real and definitive stand of the Holy See on Lipa. Actually since I became the Archbishop of Lipa in July 16, 2004, countless people have been pressing me to do this.Truly we have for a long time been wondering whether the Holy See really concurred with the April 11, 1951 Declaration of the six Philippine (Arch)bishops who composed the commission that investigated the 1948 supposed Marian apparitions in Lipa. In 1992, the late Archbishop Mariano Gaviola lifted the ban enforced fifty years earlier by the then Lipa Apostolic Administrator Bishop Rufino Santos. That April 12, 1951 decree contained the contentious phrase 'until final decision on the matter will come from the Holy See'. On November 12, 2009, I earned almost universal approval and praises for affirming the Gaviola declaration referring again to the phrase of the late Cardinal Santos. I did not hesitate to ask again the Holy See for the definitive statement. September 28, 2010 will be remembered as the day the final statement was released. I am allowed to publish the following: 'The text of the declaration of the Bishops of the Philippines, published on 11 April 1951, is as follows: "We, the undersigned Archbishops and bishops, constituting for the purpose a special Commission, having attentively examined and reviewed the evidence and testimonies collected in the course of repeated, long and careful investigations, have reached the unanimous conclusion and hereby officially declare that the above mentioned evidence and testimonies exclude any supernatural intervention in the reported extraordinary happenings - including the shower of petals - at the Carmel of Lipa." This declaration is the official communication of the final decision on the matter, as approved by the Holy See.' What many have been asking for is now finally clarified by the Holy See. The official communication of the final decision on the matter, as approved by the Holy See (italics mine), is the April 11, 1951 declaration. Take note that in the above statement, the April 12, 1951 decree of the then Lipa Administrator Bishop Rufino Santos is not cited. Therefore the oft referred phrase 'until final decision on the matter will come from the Holy See' can no longer be invoked. Obviously, the Holy See's approval concerns the contents of the April 11, 1951. There is no mention of the April 12, 1951 decree. Exactly a year ago, I issued the following decree: "Whereas, on April 12, 1951 the then Apostolic Administrator of Lipa, Rufino J. Santos, D.D., issued a decree banning public veneration of the image of Our Lady Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace; Whereas, while the Carmelite nuns and some others, most specially the Lipa clergy, obediently observed the ban, the great majority of ordinary faithful silently but perseveringly continued their prayer to and devotion towards the Mediatrix of All Grace; Whereas, on July 16, 1991 after 40 years of silence the Most Rev Mariano G. Gaviola in effect lifted the ban and allowed the veneration of the Image of Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace for the people to pray for world peace; Whereas, the fervour of numerous faithful from the Archdiocese of Lipa and from elsewhere continued and even increased throughout the subsequent years and many miracles of physical and spiritual healing have been ceaselessly reported; Whereas, increasing number of pilgrims heed the supposed call of the Blessed Mother Mediatrix of All Grace by visiting the monastery making penitential processions and praying almost everyday but most of all on first Saturdays and every twelfth day of the month; Whereas, the faithful seek from the official church guidance and assistance in deeper faith; Whereas, the local church of Lipa that will celebrate its centenary from April 10,2010 to April 10, 2011 looks forward to a deeper renewal of faith in all the faithful and the increase of missionary fervour with the help of Mary,the Star of Third Millennium Evangelization; Whereas in the last one hundred years apparently the issue on the Mediatrix of All Grace, regardless of the authenticity or not of the so-called Marian apparitions in the Carmel of Lipa, is the most celebrated event recorded of this local Church; So, therefore, I, the undersigned Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Lipa declare and publicly announce: That pursuant to the instructions and conditions issued by my predecessor Archbishop Mariano G. Gaviola, the decree of 1951 is hereby reversed; That the public veneration of the image of Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace in the Carmelite Monastery of Lipa be continued and made available for the prayer of the pilgrims for true peace in our nation and the sanctification of all priests; That the contemplative and prayerful atmosphere of the Carmelite monastery as willed by the reforms of St. Teresa of Avila be properly maintained for the edification and spiritual growth of the pilgrims who join the prayers of the contemplatives of the said place; That all bans written or unwritten intended to curtail or diminish the devotion to Mary Mediatrix of All Grace be lifted; Finally, that a new commission be established to review the documents about the so-called apparitions in1948 as well as to compile further documents thereafter up to the present. Humbly, respectfully and joyfully,I must state that my November12 decree does not in any way conflict with the final statement of the Holy See. I owe the late Rufino Cardinal Santos a lot for what I am now. He was the one who received me as a seminarian and later member of the clergy of Manila. I believe he, who was himself deeply Marian, will be happy to know that the difficulties of the early fifties are being resolved slowly in favour of the honour due to the Blessed Mother and the good of the Church especially in our part of the world. Some clarifications need to be made. (cnt'd below)
Archbishop Arguelles' 2010 statement (cnt'd) (Emphasis PB) First of all, the Holy See, while accepting officially the April 11,1951 verdict about the Lipa apparitions, does not prohibit the spread of the devotion to Mary under the worthy title Mediatrix of All Grace. In fact the Holy See recognizes that the devotion of the people of the Philippines and especially of the faithful of our Archdiocese to the Blessed Mother is well known and must be promoted. Pope Pius XII said this already in 1954: "Philippines! Kingdom of Mary! Philippines! Kingdom of the Holy Rosary! Run to this throne of Grace, to this saving devotion, because the storm is raging not far away from you. Remain firm in the Holy Faith of your fathers that you have received at the cradle, just as your islands remain firm, although shaken by earthquakes and violently besieged by irritated waves. Organize your nascent nation but in giving a rightful place to Christian values. By so doing, you will guarantee for yourselves the best in all things and prepare yourselves to be in the Far East a lighthouse of Christian faith, column and pillar of an edifice whose greatness no one can predict. "I myself will not cease from promoting love and devotion to the Blessed Mother. We badly need her help especially as we face these critical moments when the Church is persecuted and God is terribly offended by the massive effort to promote government policies that violate God's commandments. I have also again and again emphasized that the Blessed Mother counts on us to join Her in the great Third Millennium Evangelization task. Secondly, the April 11, 1951 decree stated that the special commission,which examined attentively and reviewed the evidence and testimonies collected in repeated, long and careful investigations,reached the unanimous conclusion and officially declared the … evidence and testimonies exclude any supernatural intervention in the reported extraordinaryhappenings --including the showers of petals-- at the Carmel of Lipa. This as well is the official stand of the Holy See. But no one can be stopped nor be faulted if he feels otherwise. In fact many people at that time left personal testimonies of their own experience of the extraordinary events. But they did not challenge the Episcopal commission then. Like the saintly souls including Bishop Alfredo Versoza and Bishop Alfredo Obviar, they kept their conviction in their hearts, obedient to the Church, hoping until their dying breath that 'someday the Blessed Virgin will vindicate Herself' . In respect for the Holy See's recently better clarified stand, refraining from reference to the 1948 apparitions, in spite of personal belief will be more pleasing even to the Most Holy Mother. True followers of Mary are obedient and humble. Our love for Mary must also show in our love for the Church, the Bride of Christ. Pilgrims may continue to join the Carmelite nuns in promoting and relishing the prayerful atmosphere of the place. All must plead with heaven that the Blessed Mother will still gather many of Her children around Herself to save the Church especially in the Philippines from the escalating threats to our faith. May God Himself intervene and strengthen all to close ranks with the Mother of all humanity to save our Church from imminent dangers and the faithful from losing their faith. The local Church in Lipa will and must remain --and even give compelling proof that it is-- the Marian Center of the archipelago. This archdiocese which celebrates its centennial Jubilee must enter the new century with a greater missionary vigour always under the guidance of the Our Lady of Caysasay, the Mediatrix of All Grace. Thirdly, the commission created this time last year accomplished the compilation of old and new documents which are by no means kept undisclosed. The documents were freely given them by many pious people and freely shared with all interested. The final declaration from the Holy See makes the existence of the said commission as tasked with gathering past documents irrelevant. This pious and selfless circle of lay faithful, of religious and of priests, so devoted to the Holy Mother, and consequently obedient to the Holy Church, will henceforth cease to function like an investigative body. They are now assigned to help all devotees and pilgrims deepen their Marian commitment to the total benefit of the local Church and of all the faithful according to the desires of the Blessed Virgin Mary expressed in many of her self manifestations (especially in Lourdes and Fatima). These seasoned scholars and experts in various fields who put their specialties at the service of Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Grace, are instead to make studies of present graces and favours due to the ardent prayers and steadfastness of devotees. They are to reflect and explain prayerfully the meaning of Marian attachment to Jesus in these difficult times in the country and theworld and its bearing on theChurch's millennium evangelization project. September 28, 2010, will remain a memorable moment for me for something I experienced. It was the Feast of St. Lorenzo Ruiz, the only so far canonized Filipino saint. Earlier I celebrated Mass at the altar of Blessed Pope John XXIII after which I went to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith to meet the two Vatican personalities. The meeting was very cordial. I thank them until now for the kind reception. I will be dishonest if I deny my feelings of sadness and disappointment. But there is also a sense of contentment and joy. At least we can go on properly guided by the official Church. As I haveremarked again and again, what happened sixty years ago is past. What we do now and what happens now and in the near future iswhat matters more. We have still to stand by our Holy Mother and with Her fearlessly awaken in everyone the need to return to God, to bring the good news to people of our times, to witness even through suffering to the love of Jesus. Outside the building of the Holy Office, I read a text in my cell phone. ABS-CBN wanted to interview me. I texted back asking on what topic and if possible to wait for a week on my return to the country to answer their queries. Before the day was over, numberless communications arrived through my cell phone announcing with great alarm President Noynoy Aquino's declaration in the USA which he was visiting, that he was going to support the Reproductive Health Bill pending in Congress and this clearly after being promised financial aid from the USA. A coincidence? Returning home, I was met with so much tearful remarks regarding the sudden upsurge of the anti-Catholic propaganda. I felt our country was on the way of degeneration like many countries I saw in my journey. It seemed to me that the faith situation is different from the Philippines I left two weeks earlier. Even friends and former comrades, including priests and religious, have shifted sides. Thanks to San Lorenzo Ruiz, patron saint of the Filipino laity, most combatants against the anti-Life bills are lay people. The more I realized, we need Mary, the foremost laywoman, in these times of great crisis. The evil one must not prevail. I hope more pilgrims will see the need for God's help and Mary's assistance more than ever. I do at this very moment. In spite of everything I trust heaven will not abandon us. Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace, help our country and the whole world. Archbishop Ramon C. Arguelles, D.D. Archbishop of Lipa
The second document by Archbishop Arguelles is his September 12, 2015 decree approving the Lipa apparitions as 'worthy of belief'. Given his 2010 statement above about 'refraining from reference to the 1948 apparitions, despite personal belief', the question has to be asked: what occurred between 2010 and 2015 to change Abp Arguelles' mind regarding this to such an extent that he made his September 2015 proclamation? Looking at these two documents, it is not difficult to see how some in the CDF would have been angered at his apparent volte face. It is interesting to note that the passage that I have marked in bold questions the validity of the 1951 negative ruling on the grounds that some members of the Episcopal Commission concerned later made notarial retractations. When did this information come to light - subsequent to 2010? In the literature on the Lipa apparitions it has been claimed that the signature of the Bishops in 1951 was obtained under threat of excommunication by Apostolic delegate Mgr Egidio Vagnozzi. Ramon C. Arguelles, DD, STL Archbishop of Lipa DECREE WHEREAS, THE TITLE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE HAS BEEN ASCRIBEDTO THE MOST HOLY MOTHER OF GOD ALREADY IN AGES PAST EVEN DURING THE PERIOD OF THE EARLIEST CHURCH FATHERS; WHEREAS, THE FAITHFUL OF BELIGIUM UNDER THE SHEPHERD CARE OF THEN CARDINAL MERCIER FOSTERED THE DEVOTION TO THE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE AND ENDORSED THE DOGMATIC DEFINITION OF MARY AS MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE; WHEREAS, THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF CHINA CONSECRATED IN 1942 THE CHURCH IN CHINA TO MARY MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE ASSURING THE FIDELITY OF CATHOLICS TO THE CHURCH EVEN IN THE MOST TRYING MOMENTS THUS RENDERING THE CHURCH IN CHINA STRONG AND FAITHFUL; WHEREAS, THE BLESSED MOTHER APPEARED TO A CARMELITE POSTULANT NAMED TERESITA CASTILLO SEVERAL TIMES IN 1948 MAKING HERSELF KNOWN AS THE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE; WHEREAS, THE SAID POSTULANT AS WELL AS SEVERAL OTHERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPARITIONS ENDURED SEVERE SUFFERINGS GIVING PROOF OF THE REALIZATION Of THE WARNING GIVEN BY THE BLESSED MOTHER HERSELF: 'You will suffer, you will be ridiculed, but fear not, because your faith will bring you to Heaven'; WHEREAS, THE SECOND BISHOP OF LIPA, THE FIRST FILIPINO BISHOP OF THIS LOCAL CHURCH, WHO SPENT THIRTY FOUR YEARS (1916-1950) OF FAITHFUL MINISTRY IN THIS DIOCESE THAT THEN EXTENDS FROM THE PRESENT PROVINCE OF AURORA TO THE BOUNDARIES OF BICOLANDIA, SENT BACK HUMILIATED TO HIS HOMETOWN, VIGAN, ILOCOS SUR, BECAUSE OF MISMANAGEMENT AND PROMOTION OF THE DEVOTION TO THE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE, REVEALED UNTIL HIS UNTIMELY DEATH SANCTITY OF LIFE AND TOTAL SUBMISSION TO GOD'S HOLY WILL; WHEREAS, THE FIRST BATANGUEñO BISHOP, THE FIRST AUXILIARY BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF LIPA, AFTER EXPRESSING CREDENCE IN THE MARIAN APPARITION IN LIPA, AND CONSEQUENTLYUNTIMELY MOVED TO SERVE ONLY AS ADMINSITRATOR OF THE THEN NEWLY ERECTED DIOCESE OF LUCENA UNTIL ALMOST THE MOMENT OF HIS DEMISE SHOWED, HOLINESS AND HUMBLY OBEYED THE VERDICT METED ON HIM; WHEREAS, THE APRIL 10, 1951, DOCUMENT DECLARING THERE WAS NOTHING SUPERNATURAL IN THE ALLEGED APPARITIONS AND MIRACLES IN LIPA, WAS FROM THE VERY START SEEN WITH A SHADOW OF DOUBT BECAUSE OF NOTARIED TESTIMONIES THAT NEAR THE END OF THEIR LIFE THE BOSHOP SIGNATORIES EXPRESSED THEIR BELIEF IN THE SAID MARIAN APPARITION; WHEREAS< THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DIOCESE OF LIPA AFTER THE DEPARTURE OF THE RESIDENT BISHOP IN THE APRIL 11, 1951, DOCUMENT FORBADE THE DEVOTION TO THE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE BUT IN SEPTEMBER 26, 1963, APPROVED AND ALLOWED THE SPREAD OF THE SAID DEVOTION; WHEREAS, ON JULY 16, 1992, ARCHBISHOP MARIANO GAVIOLA LIFTED THE 1951 BAN ON THE DEVOTION TO THE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE AFTER DUE PRAYER AND STUDY OPENLY EXPRESSING HIS BELEIF IN THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE 1948 MARIAN APPAITIONS IN LIPA; WHEREAS, THE DEVOTION OF THE FAITHFUL, FROM NEAR AND FAR TO THE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE HAS NEVER WANED DURING THE PROSCRIPTION PERIOD AND OPENLY DEVLOPED EVEN MORE AFTER THE DECLARATION OF ARCHBISHOP GAVIOLA; WHEREAS, IN SPITE OF THE SUPPOSED BAN OF THE DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED MOTHER MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE, THE DIOCESE OF DIGOS AND THE DIOCESE OF KIDAPAWAN ARE PLACED UNDER THE TUTELAGE OF MARY, MEDIATRIX PF ALL GRACE, AND MANY PARISHES IN LUZON, VISAYAS AND MINDANAO HAVE BEEN DEDICATED IN HONOR OF THE BLESSED MOTHER UNDER THIS PREFERRED TITLE; WHEREAS, THE UNDERSIGNED, INCUMBENT ARCHBISHOP OF LIPA< OPENLY EXPRESSING BELEIF IN THE LIPA PHENOMENON AND THE FIRM PRESENCE OF MARY IN LIPA OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED THE YEARLY MARIAN DAYS OF PRAYER AND PILGRIMAGE TO LIPA WHICH STARTED IN SPETEMBER 12, 2004, DRAWING EVER GROWING NUMBER OF PILGRIMS NOT ONLY FROM THE PHILIPPINES BUT ALSO FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD; WHEREAS THIS PRAYERFUL GATHERING WITH MARY HAS BEEN REPLICAETD IN MANY NATIONS IN EUROPE, IN THE AMERICAS< EVEN IN AFRICA AND OCEANIA ALWAYS MANIFESTING THE OFFICIAL CHURCH'S ACCOMPANYING THE FAITHFUL IN THE HOLY PURSUIT OF MARY AND THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF GOD'S WILL AS DEMANDED BY THE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE; WHEREAS, THE SAMRE ARCHBISHOP, IN NOVEMBER 12, 2009, REINFORCED THE 1992 GAVIOLA DECLARATION IN ENCOURAGING THE DEVOTION TO THE MEDIATRIX PF ALL GRACE EVERYWHER BELEIVERS AND LOVERS OF THE MOST HOLY MOTHER ARE TO BE FOUND: WHEREAS, BESIDES THE ARCHDIOCESE OF LIPA OTHER LOCAL CHURCHES IN THE PHILIPPINES AND EVEN IN OTHER COUNTRIES AND CONTINENTS, THE DEVTION TO THE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE CONTINUE TO SPREAD AND BRING UNITY AMONG PEOPLES AND COMMUNITIES AND SHOWER UNTOLD BLESSINGS; WHEREAS, THE LOVE FOR THE HOLY MOTHER AND THE APPRECIATION OF THE URGENCY OF THE PLEAOF THE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE CONTINUE TO INTENSIFY AS SEEN IN THE GREAT THRONGGATHERING IN LIPA AND IN THE EVER MORE BEAUTIFUL CELEBRATIONS OF THE TAAL LAKE MARIAN FLUVIAL PROCESSION (REGATTA). WHEREAS, SEVERAL (ARCH)BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND LAY LEADERS JOIN IN CALLING MANY DEVOTEES TO GO ON PILGRIMAGE TO LIPA CARMEL LEADING TO THE JANUARY 2013 ACCEPTANCE OF THE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE BY THE CBCP; WHEREAS, THE BLESSED VIRGIN MOTHER UNDER HER TITLE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE LEADS CATHOLIC AND MARIAN PHILIPPINES IN STEADFAST STRUGGLE IN DEFNESE OF LIFE, THE SACREDNESS OF THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE, THE INTEGRITY OF THE FAMILY, THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NATURAL AND SUPERNATURAL UNION OF MAN AND WIFE; WHEREAS, THE HELP OF THE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE IS MOST ESSENTIAL AS THE PHILIPPINES, THIS PUEBLO AMANTE DE MARIA, SHOWS AND LEADS THE WORLD IN THE EFFORT TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF CREATION, TO RENEW ITSELD ACCORDING TO THE STANDPOINT OF FAITH IN GOD, TO REJECT THIS PREVALENCE OF MATERIALISM, SECULARISM AND ATHEISM, TO UPHOLD THE CULTURE OF GOODNESS, LOVE, GENEROSITY, SELFLESSNESS, SHARING and SOLIDARITY AMONG INDIVIDUALS AND NATIONS. WHEREAS, THE ASSISTANCE OF THE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE IS MUCH SOUGHT FOR TO LIVE THE DEMANDS OF THE CHURCH OF THE POOR, FOR THE POOR AND WITH THE POOR, SO THAT THE YEAR FOR THE POOR WILL BE NO MERE SLOGAN BUT A REALITY IN THE BODY OF CHRIST WHO IN HIS POVERTY ENRICHES ALL HUMANITY; WHEREAS, THE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE IS NEEDED VERY MUCH TO BRING ABOUT A TRUE AND LASTING TRANSFORMATION IN THIS NATION WHOSE CALL TO BE THE BEARER OF THE GOOD NEWS MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ITS TOTALITY; NAMELY, IN THE POLITICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMICAL AND SPIRITUAL SPHERE; WHEREAS, THE PHILIPPINES, CALLED TO BE THE HUMBLE INSTRUMENTS AND EAGER COMPANION OF THE STAR OF THIRD MILLENIUM EVANGELIZATION, MARY, MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE, NEED HER TO COMBAT ALL KINDS OF CORRUPTION, ERADICATE ALL KINDS OF ADDICTIONS, ERASE ALL FORMS OF SELF_CENTEREDNESS, OPPOSE THE CULTURE OF GREED; SO THEREFORE I, BY THE GRACE OF GOD AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE, THE SEVENTH BISHOP OF TIS LOCAL CHURCH OF LIPA, THE FIFTH ARCHBISHOP OF THIS METROPOLITAN SEE, THE MOST UNWORTHY SERVUS ANCILLAE FILIUS DECLARE WITH MORAL CERTAINTY AND WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS AND HOPES IN MIND, SEEKING THE COMPLIANCE OF THE NORMS OF THE HOLY SEE, ACTING FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD AND ASCERTAINING ALWAYS GREATER LOVE FOR HOLY MOTHER THE CHURCH, THAT THE EVENTS AND APPARITION OF 1948 ALSO KNOWN AS THE MARIAN PHENOMENON IN LIPA AND ITS AFTERMATH EVEN IN RECENT TIMES DO EXHIBIT SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER AND IS WORTHY OF BELIEF. THUS I ENCOURAGE THE DEVOTION TO THE MOST HOLY MOTHER MARY UNDER HER REVERED AND WORTHY TITLE MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE. GIVEN THIS 12th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, FEAST OF THE HOLY NAME OF MARY, OBSERVED IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF LIPA AS FEAST OF MARY, MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACE, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN. (signed) RAMON CABRERA ARGUELLES, DD
Without further explanation and how evidence was analyzed here, did anyone else's funny bone get tickled a bit with this statement??: We, the undersigned Archbishops and Bishops, constituting for the purpose of a special Commission, have attentively examined and reviewed the evidence and testimonies in the course of repeated, long, and careful examinations, have reached the unanimous conclusion and hereby officially declare that the abive mentioned evidence and testimonies exclude any supernatural intervention in the reported extraordinary happenings - including the shower of petals at the Carmel of Lipa. I mean, was Mother Superior somewhere in the rafters with buckets of rose petals showering them down for a treat that might lighten up everyday routine or something...or perhaps a blimp....previously stamping the rather fascinating images upon each?? http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lipa/index.html
Apparently how things originally "went down" in 1948: The Church investigators ruled negatively on the apparition. (While the committee of bishops appeared unanimous in their conclusion that Lipa was fraudulent, several of them confessed before they died that they too had been coerced, signing the negative "findings" only under threat of excommunication.) The Bishop and Mother Prioress were released of their jobs. The nuns were ordered to destroy all materials connected with the apparitions. They burned Teresita's diary, as well as the Mother Prioress'. The statue was also ordered to be destroyed, but the nuns kept it away, and saved it from destruction. The convent was sealed, and the nuns could talk to no one outside of the convent. Ah, the good old days!! And yet....1990....Sr. Aphonse pleaded on her deathbed that the Mediatrix statue be again exposed (for the first time in 40 years) in the chapel at the Carmelite convent. Her request was granted the next day.
This question of whether or not the 1951 signatories were coerced is absolutely critical. If this is true, then it is the 1951 ruling which is morally null and void (regardless of its juridical status), not Archbishop Arguelles' 2015 approval of Lipa. Here there are three possibilities that I can see: a) It could be that the CDF is unaware of these allegations (although this would surprise me greatly given the wording of Abp Arguelles' 2015 decree) b) It could be that the CDF has refuted these allegations of coercion in a part of their document to Abp Arguelles that he has not quoted. Obviously this cannot be confirmed or denied without seeing the full 16 paragraphs of the CDF statement. c) If neither of the above is true, this would signify that the CDF is claiming definitive and Pontifical authority for a document that they know may itself carry no moral legitimacy. If c) is true rather than a) or b), then... no comment.
It is also possible that the CDF has refuted the allegations and not put it information in writing, but conveyed that information to the archbishop in person.
