If Cardinal Muller says no, then that becomes the official position of the Catholic Church. Does that mean that the Lipa apparitions are not authentic? Certainly not. In these matters, history illustrates clearly that the Church is not infallible to put it mildly. The CDF ruling certainly will have an impact on what an individual priest or bishop will be able to do in connection with the apparitions but for a lay person who believes in the apparitions (like our own padraig!), it will, in my view, be up to them how the ruling affects them. This matter of "we must obey" keeps being quoted, often as a kind of threat (although not by you, Ed!), but we really do need to get clear in our minds what is the nature of the obedience that is called for. Those who view any document coming from the Vatican as something to be followed in blind obedience are reducing in number but there are still many who follow that line and quite a few participate on this forum! We must certainly follow the Church but, above all, we must ALWAYS follow the Truth.
No, Peter I don't think there would be a widespread rejection of the CDF if the ruling in the Philippines imposes a ban. Mainly because I don't believe anyone actually cares or knows what happens in the Philippines. And I am certain Blessed Mother knows this only too well. A European apparition would not be understood in the near or far East the way it would be understood in those regions when apparitions occur in those places. And visa versa. Just my humble opinion. And when people say the hierarchy must be blindly obeyed, I am certain, nowadays we need to find out if we are being led up a blind alley. Or we can end up like the Jews who were instructed by their hierarchy to shout 'Crucify Jesus.' And the people obeyed. Why are we blind to the gay mafia in the Church. Why are we bind to the sexual perversion in the Church. Why are we blind to the Bishops who refuse to obey the Holy Father. Whom we MUST OBEY. There are too many people with power over our lives who owe us and explanation as to their own conduct, if we are ever to rest easy in our Faith again. All we know is what the media or the CDF tell us, or opinions from strangers on the internet.
It all reminds me of a ball game , in the middle of which you suddenly realise that the referee and linesmen are scoring goals for the other side.
"What is truth?" Pilot asked. David, you write as if there is a yawning gap between the Church and Jesus. There is not. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. He instituted the Church on earth to guide us. All Catholics follow the guidance of the Church in matters of faith and morals. Any formal declaration of the head of the CDF requires "religious assent" of all faithful Catholics. "Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. (Catechism, 892) #25 in Lumen Gentium,Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution: In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. The prefect of the CDF is appointed by the pope and acts as his agent. Now you may not wish to make religious assent of this ruling, or of other formal rulings of the CDF (Vassula). God never interferes with our free will. The Church cannot COMMAND, CONTROL or otherwise FORCE submission, to which you seem to object so strongly. Faithful Catholics are grateful for guidance in the Church's area of authority. If we do not accept the Church's guidance, we set ourselves up as equal to the bishops and the pope. (This has nothing to do with the human frailty of any Church official. This does not mean we are to ignore widespread sexual abuse or any other misbehavior. It is a completely separate matter.)
Harper, Isnt this all very familiar. Its not different to the issues discussed in recent weeks concerning Vassula, Fr Iannuzzi and the so called era of peace. The reality is that people are so hooked on certain visionaries/messages that they begin to see themselves as a parallel magisterium where "feelings" about events or people overtake the God given authority to the Pope and those charged by him to act on his behalf. Its why they couldnt accept st Hildegards revelations that clearly contradicted the seventh day coming soon theory (even though her revelations recieved the highest form of approval in the form of several popes). To do that would mean having to let go of private theories and interpretations. I find these events of Lipa rather significant in what has transpired on this fourm in recent weeks. The CDF is doing the job asked of it by the Holy Father and none of us has the authority to go against it
I have not seen anyone going against the CDF in its work. Neither Archbishop Arguelles nor those who promote the True Life in God messages of Vassula. The situation regarding Vassula and the CDF has been repeatedly explained to you yet you choose to interpret things your own way. That's your choice but however many times you try to argue to the contrary, Catholics are perfectly free to read and promote True Life in God. The two paragraphs from the Catechism which you quote are of course, referring to the teaching authority of the Church on faith and morals, not its disciplinary work. Here is a pertinent passage from the TLIG messages: the Church finds itself, in your times, attacked; the western world has apostatized; the devil encourages them to promote relativism, secularism, liberalism, materialism and a total lack of respect for life; such evils come from the devil who tries to destroy My Church, My Commandments, My Precepts and My Law and all the values of life; My Church is in such a disarray because of its division and if She is weak it is because of the fault of the hierarchy's division; their spirit is unresponsive to My callings of repentance and reconciliation; their spirit of ostentatious pride should be replaced by a spirit of humility and meekness; their spirit of prejudice by a spirit of dispassion; their spirit of fear by a spirit of trust; their spirit of stubbornness by a lenient spirit; http://www.tlig.org/en/messages/1106/
That passage from Vassula is not pertinent; it carries no weight; it is a private meditation of a woman who has received two negative rulings from the CDF (twice under the authority of Ratzinger/Benedict), her own Greek Orthodox Church and has been condemned by the Church of Cyprus as a heretic. The formal notifications and announcements of the CDF regarding the supernatural character and/or authenticity of any private revelation do carry weight and require our assent. Note the agreement contained in the 2007 document that these are private meditations. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH 25th January 2007 [http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfrydn4.htm] Prot. N.: 54/92 – 24945 Your Eminence/Your Excellency, The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith continues to receive requests for clarification in relation to the writings and activities of Mrs. Vassula Ryden. These requests address in particular the import of the Notification of 6 October 1995, and the criteria to be considered by the local Church in judging whether the writings of Mrs Vassula Ryden may appropriately be disseminated. 1) The Notification of 1995 remains valid as a doctrinal judgment of the writings examined (see Enclosure 1). 2) Mrs. Vassula Ryden, however, after dialogue with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has offered clarifications on some problematic points in her writings and on the nature of her messages which are presented not as divine revelations, but rather as her personal meditations (see Enclosure 2: Letter of 4 April 2002, published in True Life in God, vol. 10). From a normative point of view therefore, following the aforementioned clarifications, a case by case prudential judgment is required in view of the real possibility of the faithful being able to read the writings in the light of the said clarifications. 3) Finally, it remains inappropriate for Catholics to take part in prayer groups established by Mrs. Ryden. Concerning the question of ecumenical meetings, the faithful are to follow the norms of the Ecumenical Directory, of the Code of Canon Law (canons: 215; 223 §2 and 383 §3) and of Diocesan Ordinaries. Yours sincerely in Christ Cardinal William LEVADA Prefect
The very fact there are doctrinal errors in it means it cannot be of supernatural origin (well not divine anyway)
It seems that it's not the people who are in disobedience to the Church re: what is permitted by the Church for them in regards to Vassula. Rather it seems that it's the Church Who isn't in obedience to Harper!!
I'm not. Since I'm not holier than the Church I humbly read what C. Ratzinger asked of us (via the Bishops) to take into consideration re: the further explanations in the ongoing dialogue with the authorities which of course she has no responsibility to do anyway since she is Greek Orthodox but does so in respect for better clarification. Simply take into consideration that advice, along with the now "caution", as well as the guidance of individual Bishops, and then you would avoid going rather apoplectic at even the mention of her name. The Bishops don't so why should you? Again, it seems that it's the Church Who isn't in obedience to you or Harper that must bother you. Doesn't bother me to follow such guidance. In fact it gives greater security. It's private revelation that is itself in a different category from what you apparently must be holding it to. Things are not written in stone in such ongoing phenomenon....as we have seen as we've moved along with this particular one. Good advice to simply move with the Church, not against it.
When Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the CDF, issued his affirmation of the original notification, Vassula responded with a public letter on her website calling him a liar. Personal attack are the response to criticism of Vassula and other "visionaries" who receive negative judgements. Here is part of Vassula's letter, from her website: To TLIG readers worldwide: Response to Cardinal Levada’s letter of January 2007. By Vassula Ryden Dear friends, Recently the new prefect of the CDF in Rome , H.E. William Cardinal Levada, has sent a letter dated January 25th 2007, to Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Presidents of Bishops Conferences worldwide. This stirred considerable unrest amongst our readers, especially those of Roman Catholic faith. I attach his letter for you to be fully informed. I am sorry that once again there is much confusion, and thank you for the many letters of support and prayer for the continuing propagation of the TLIG messages. I am writing to clarify this confusion and to sharpen your memories. The letter is confusing and contradicts itself. At one moment it sounds negative and at another favorable! It appears to have been composed in a rush since it contains several errors and misinformation. I have written to his Eminence and asked him to kindly correct those errors, but I have not yet received a response from him. The conclusion to my dialogue with the CDF was positive. This positive conclusion was to be held “low key”, and hence there would not be a new Notification to eliminate the old one. However, as Card. Ratzinger said, the situation had now been modified in the sense that the messages should now be read in the light of my clarifications. For exactly this reason, Cardinal Ratzingerformally requested of me that my dialogue with the CDF be published in the new editions of my books, a request I heeded when the dialogue was published in the latest Volume, Volume 12, and subsequent new editions of the messages. All this is contained in the points 1 and 2 of Card. Levada’s letter and this is positive. Thus, point 3 in the letter remains ever more surprising since Cardinal Levada uses this positive conclusion to produce a negative statement, i.e. that Catholics are not advised to participate in TLIG prayer groups. More seriously, the negative recommendation in this third point was published without further consultation with me and contrary to the normal canonical procedures, namely that any person accused should be heard before being accused: “Before issuing an individual decree an authority should seek out the necessary information and proofs, and also hear those whose rights can be injured, in so far as this is possible” (Canon 50). Although I had written to the CDF that I was prepared to continue in dialogue if they might have any further questions, I did not receive any reply, nor was I called in to any conversation, which would have been only right since I had engaged in dialogue with them, trusting them and entrusting myself to them! I furthermore wrote that I would be willing to make clarifications in footnotes to the messages if they believed anything needed clarification. I was not asked to make any such comments to the messages which is one more confirmation that the outcome of the dialogue was positive. With the new conclusion in Cardinal Levada’s letter he is thus rejecting the study and the dialogue that the then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope), and Cardinal Bertone (now Secretary of State) had with me during a period of two and a half years, during which time many inspectors, theologians, Bishops and Cardinals, after study, had to give their final opinion as well and that, as you all know, was positive. The letter refers the reader to two canons: Canon 215 and 223. Can.215 The Christian faithful are at liberty freely to found and direct associations for purposes of charity or piety or for the promotion of the Christian vocation in the world and to hold meetings for the common of these purposes. Can.223§ 1. In exercising their rights, the Christian faithful, both as individuals and gathered together in associations, must take into account the common good of the Church, the rights of others, and their own duties toward others These canons confirm that the Catholic faithful are free to form and gather in prayer groups. How is it then that such canons are quoted to say that it is not advisable to participate in TLIG prayer groups? Furthermore, the letter contains three grave errors. 1. The gravest damage is caused by a false statement in the Cardinal’s letter. He states and puts into my mouth words I never said, and these words are: “that the messages are not divine revelations but my own personal meditations!” This is NOT TRUE! I never said anything of the sort, ever! This is a very serious and fundamental error. I am reluctant to believe that this misrepresentation was deliberate, rather than due to negligence, but the effect is the same. A false statement has been published to the Bishops and indeed the world. 2. In clause no. 2 of the letter, the faithful are guided to read my dialogue with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in vol. 10, instead of in vol. 12. This is an unfortunate mistake that can, nevertheless, be corrected. There is nothing in vol. 10 of the said dialogue. If it is not corrected the Catholic faithful will be unable to look for themselves and read my letter with the answers. 3. In that same clause, no. 2., the letter writes about “my letter” dated 4 April 2002. However, it was Fr. Prospero Grech’s letter, that was dated 4 April 2002. My replies were published in my letter of 26 June 2002. This, also confuses the faithful.
Its funny how asking a couple of questions means you are considered apoplectic. There are no further explanation or dialogue. That was finished years ago and resulted in Cardinal Lavada reaffriming there a doctrinal errors still and they are only private meditations. The notification of 21 years ago and still in effect means the situation is written in stone as far as the Church is concerned.
The passage I quoted from the TLIG messages is pertinent in various ways and Cardinal Levada's letter is a good example of divisions in the herarchy with regard to Vassula. Cardinal Levada's letter conflicts with the position of the then Cardinal Ratzinger. As for point 2 of Cardinal Levada's letter, whenever I read it, the second half of the paragraph seems to me to be largely gobbledygook! The first half contains this sentence "the nature of her messages which are presented not as divine revelations, but rather as her personal meditations". The sentence is simply untrue. Nowhere does Vassula present her messages as 'her personal meditations'. The vast collection of messages that make up the True Life in God messages contain no doctrinal errors, as Cardinal Ratzinger discovered in the 2001-2004 dialogue. Cardinal Levada's letter was certainly a great disappointment to TLIG readers but the Cardinal himself had made no further investigation of Vassula's writings and probably knew very little about her or the writings. The following passage from the writings is a good example of why there is so much opposition to Vassula from some in the Vatican: "you were once My Eden, Rome, My Garden of delights, even My angels were lost in amazement over your perfect beauty; and you governed My House in holiness and justice; honesty and love was the soul of My House; you were indeed the reflection of My Eternal Light, leaving an everlasting memory to My saints and My angels; your wealth and your treasures were heavenly then; "today, Rome, your soul has turned into the Beast's reflection and you have taken the position of sentry in My territory to prohibit the entry to My Holy Spirit and the prophets who prophesy in My Name, calling you for repentance and to renounce your evil ways; to save you, I, Myself, come to your door now to address you; have you not read: "a child of God listens to the words of God?" 4 but so far not a single word I pronounced has penetrated into you; for you, My Words are something inactive and nil; My grace has been rejected and My salvation plan discredited; you are outrageously rebellious and arrogant when it comes to the truth, this is why you claim to have knowledge and discernment on My heavenly Works so as to tarnish My mouthpieces who expose your darkness to the world ...." http://www.tlig.org/en/messages/891/
In fact, questioning is taken as a personal attack, and more personal attacks result. That is not discussion or argument. The most important thing to remember is that we are not required to affirm any private revelation at all. Private revelation cannot add to the Deposit of Faith and is not necessary to salvation. Though adherents of a particular discredited apparition may be disappointed -- as I would be very disappointed if a cause for sainthood in my area is rejected-- the only sure and safe path is through the Church.
Wouldn't you like that to be true, Mr Simpson! You can repeat it as many times as you like but the 2004 clarifications with Cardinal Ratzinger will not go away. They are printed at the back of each book of the messages, at Cardinal Ratzinger's request.
If what you say is true about Cardinal Ratzinger "that he had to obey cardinals" why, when as Pope with supreme authority in governing the Church did he not issue another notification? In fact these is no way Cardinal Lavada issued that new letter without the knowledge of the Pope. Her clarifications were not enough to lift the original. If Ratzinger was convinced of her truthfulness he would had stepped in. The problem is David, you like Mark Mallett rely on supposed things said in private which we have no knowledge if it actually happened. What evidence we do have (in both cases Vassula and the era of peace) is that official Church documents rule out both. Anything else is completely irrelevant.
I think to be honest what bothers me is having heard the German Bishops are in revolt against the Holy Father. Would we be forced under this obsessive obedience to be part of a schism if Muller announces he is the true faith. After all he is appointed CDF spokesman by the Holy Father with the power to oblige us to obey. This is probably where I am coming from at the bottom of it all. We need to be with the Holy Father AND THE BISHOPS UNITED WITH HIM. Knowing who they are, is the thing we need to discern, if we are to remain in the one true Church. I bet those in Luthers day thought they were in the true Church.
