The opening post referred to the article in Spirit Daily. I read the article and gave my opinion based on the contents of the report in Spirit Daily. In that report, there is a statement from the Bishop quoting Cardinal Muller. People here are inferring that Cardinal Muller is lying or misrepresenting the truth. Rather than accusing me of making strident comments, why don't those of you who are casting aspersions on the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith show your evidence that Cardinal Muller has exceeded his authority or misled the faithful.
Firstly, we don't know why events have taken this current turn. The information available is insufficient to allow for a balanced evaluation IMHO on an apparition which, until two days ago, was 'officially approved' by the Church and is no longer so. Secondly, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a collective body to whose internal workings none of us are privy, so the fact that the decree was signed by Cardinal Müller is not necessarily an implication of personal responsibility on his part (recall the statement of Cardinal Ratzinger when prefect of the CDF that he had to 'obey the cardinals' in relation to the 1995 Notification on Vassula Rydén). This needs to be said very clearly.
Peter B. Thank you so much for including in the information, about the pressure placed on the Bishops who were involved with the original investigation into the alleged apparitions at Lipa. That was one of the things I remembered reading, and was horrified; because it appeared whoever had the most authority forced the other Bishops to say what they were told to say and not what they believed to be the truth. I did read that some of those Bishops confessed on their death beds that they had been coerced into a negative finding and they had lived with that on their conscience for the rest of their lives. Because they knew they were not in agreement with the negative finding. That needs to be said. It looks like the Arch Bishop now wants the people to begin again. And with the devotions of the Rosary, First Saturdays, confession, Holy Communion, and the practice of fasting just like Fatima and Lourdes, I believe he hopes Our Lady Mediatrix of all Grace will come to the aid of the Phillippino people in a powerful way. And maybe please God protect them from the degeneration that has swept across Europe and USA. Is it a coincidence that the new leader in the Phillippeens has said he is out to get the Church. They need Blessed Mother desperately. And it is a late day today if Our Lady's Immaculate Heart Triumphs there now. But who cares as long as we are all right Jack. No worries if Catholics from there start risking their lives migrating to get away from persecution. Just more martyrs under obedience to the magisterium. Maybe when it arrives on our own doorsteps we will start to rethink what is going on.
Peter B: ..."Secondly, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a collective body to whose internal workings none of us are privy, so the fact that the decree was signed by Cardinal Müller is not necessarily an implication of personal responsibility on his part (recall the statement of Cardinal Ratzinger when prefect of the CDF that he had to 'obey the cardinals' in relation to the 1995 Notification on Vassula Rydén). This needs to be said very clearly." Was the Ratzinger statement above part of the official record, or is it someone's report of a private conversation? Are you implying Mueller gave way to some form of pressure to issue this week's decision? Julia: ..."But who cares as long as we are all right Jack. No worries if Catholics from there start risking their lives migrating to get away from persecution. Just more martyrs under obedience to the magisterium. Maybe when it arrives on our own doorsteps we will start to rethink what is going on." Would the Blessed Mother be pleased if there were widespread rejection of the CDF ruling in the Philippines?
What is baffling is all that is listed as continuing to take place at this spot or vicinity SINCE 1951. This alone would give the local authority reason to create a new commission (or at least to request one) which he attempted to do, but either this continuing information was not communicated to the Congregation or they felt they had permanently shut the door, once and for all, attempting to relegate this place to the past since they, once again also, only felt it necessary to keep referring any new effects or fruits back to that 1951 conclusion. Does this current Prefect actually talk to the usual authorities closest to the happenings? For instance: Feb 1990 A new phenomenon was reported in the Granja District of Lipa City. A white luminous outline of a female in prayer began to supposedly appear at night on one of the leaves of a tall coconut tree. May 21, 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. Jan 24, 1991 Rose petals began to fall straight from the sky again at the Carmelite convent in Lipa City. A few days later, six children playing in the garden at the convent said that the statue come to life. 1992 Msgr. Mariano Gaviola, archbishop of Lipa, lifted the ban enforced fifty years earlier by the then Lipa Apostolic Administrator Bishop Rufino Santos and granted permission to display again the image of the Mediatrix of all Grace. Read the declaration of 1992 1993 Msgr. Mariano Gaviola declared his personal conviction that the Lipa apparitions were worthy of belief. Sept 12, 2005 Most Reverend Ramon C. Arguelles, D.D., Archbishop of Lipa, resurrected the devotion with an official kick-off with "increased activity and devotion" and plans to place statues representing the Virgin of Lipa, as Our Lady Mediatrix of All Grace, in every diocese. Sept 12, 2006 A National Day of Pilgrimage and Prayer in honor of Our Lady, Mary Mediatrix of All Grace in Carmel, Lipa every year on September 12 to mark the Anniversary of the First Apparition of Our Lady to Sister Teresita Castillo in 1948. Sept 2008 Before an International Mariological Congress in Lourdes, France Bishop Arguelles stated bluntly: “Yes, Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace, did appear in Lipa.” (Source) Nov 12, 2009 Archbishop Arguelles lifted the 1951 ban on the public veneration of Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Grace. Nov 12, 2009 Archbishop Arguelles formed a new commission to revisit the series of apparitions. Nov 2009 In the November 2009 issue of “Ulat Batangan,” official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Lipa, Bishop Arguelles wrote in his column: " Increasingly many concur with me that most likely the most significant event in the local Church of Lipa all these hundred years is the supposed visit of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1948. Undeniably the Blessed Virgin Mary is extremely active during the last decades. If she had indeed shown her presence and delivered her message in various places throughout the world even in some nations in Asia, how can this “pueblo amante de Maria” be different and excluded from her powerful intervention? (Source) That's an awful lot of years and happenings since 1951 (and up to now) not to have even a bit of curiosity offered by those considered to be following all the rules of judgement of such phenomena. I mean there are actual standards required by the Church for honest study of private revelations. I didn't know that there were certain individuals exempt from abiding by the rules.
Earth: ..."That's an awful lot of years and happenings since 1951 (and up to now) not to have even a bit of curiosity offered by those considered to be following all the rules of judgement of such phenomena. I mean there are actual standards required by the Church for honest study of private revelations. I didn't know that there were certain individuals exempt from abiding by the rules." Much of the activity you cite seems to be at the instigation of the archbishop, who appears to have a personal devotion. Once the Vatican has claimed jurisdiction in a particular case, it would be/was unwise of the archbishop to take action without close consultation. Clearly he wasn't in close contact with Rome, or he would have anticipated the reaction. What "certain individuals" are exempt from abiding by the rules, Earth?
Thanks, Peter, for posting some background to this. Reading some of the early comments on this thread, Cardinal Muller is being portrayed as a one man band out to quash any and all apparitions. That's what I take exception to. We don't know what other evidence the CDF has about Teresita or the convent. We don't know the contents of her diary and we don't know whether the CDF saw her diary, yet people are willing to point the finger at Cardinal Muller while acknowledging that they don't know all the facts. What I'm reading from the further information you posted is that the Church does not consider the apparitions to be worthy of belief but does approve of devotion to Our Lady Mediatrix of Grace. Clearly, there has been some kind of mix-up or mishandling of matters surrounding the apparition but only people in possession of all the facts can know who is at fault for that.
Q: What is the story behind the images of the rose petals in the Philippines? A: During the 1980s at the grotto of Our Lady of Annunciation, at Christ the King Seminary, Quezon City in the Philippines Islands, rose petals were found being given away that were noted to have been imprinted with images. These petals were similar to a shower of rose petals in Lipa, Phillippines, in 1948, which allegedly took place in the Lipa Carmelite convent, Carmel of Our Lady, Mary Mediatrix of all Grace. (See image.) It is the opinion of the person sending a report to The Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute that the imprints on the petals could not have been made by mechanical means. A book about the Lipa experiences has been written by June Keithley, entitled Lipa, with the original account of the events at Lipa Carmel in 1948 by Mother Mary Cecilia of Jesus, OCD. (ISBN: 971-19-0128-5). The work is a careful and sober study of the phenomena. Similar occurrences began during the 1980s at the grotto of Our Lady of Annunciation in Quezon City. Recently, persons familiar with the 1980's phenomenon began to test the authenticity of the rose petals. Until today, no explanation has been forthcoming regarding these events. http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/yq/yq253.html
How the Church discerns private revelations and associated events, by Fr. Peter Joseph, Chancellor of the Maronite Diocese of Australia, from an article "Apparitions True and False," published in Christian Order: Sources of revelations There are three sources, ultimately, of revelations, visions, prodigies, and suchlike things: God, man, or the devil. Under the heading of God, I include God’s holy creatures, such as Our Lady or another Saint or an angel. Under man, I mean any human knowledge or skill or trickery or imagination or any human activity or machine or device causing anything to happen. Under the devil, I include the devil himself or any one of the other demons. The power of the devil: Very few people are aware of the devil’s full powers, and his ability to deceive. Many Catholics think that as soon as any prodigy occurs, it must be the work of God. But, as I said, messages and prodigies can issue from three sources ultimately: God, man, or the devil. It is the work of discernment to identify who is at work in a given case. It is knowledge of diabolical trickery which makes the Church cautious here. My next part on the power of the demons is taken from Father Jordan Aumann, a Dominican priest, who taught for many years at the Angelicum University in Rome. What the devils can and cannot do. The devils cannot do the following: (1) Produce any kind of truly supernatural phenomenon; (2) Create a substance, since only God can create; (3) Bring a dead person back to life, although they could produce the illusion of doing so; (4) Make truly prophetic predictions, since only God knows the future absolutely, and those to whom He chooses to reveal a portion of it. However, the devil’s intelligent conjecture about the future might appear to mere mortals a prophecy; (5) Know the secrets of a person’s mind and heart. However, their shrewd intelligence and observation may enable them to deduce many things about a person. But the devils can do the following: (1) Produce corporeal or imaginative visions; (2) Falsify ecstasy; (3) Instantaneously cure sicknesses that have been caused by diabolical influence; (4) Produce the stigmata; (5) Simulate miracles and the phenomena of levitation and bilocation; (6) Make people or objects seem to disappear by interfering with a person’s sight or line of vision; (7) Cause a person to hear sounds or voices; (8) Cause a person to speak in tongues; (9) Declare a fact which is hidden or distant. Whatever nature or science can cause, the devils too are able to cause, according to what God may permit. See the Book of Exodus where the magicians and sorcerers of Pharaoh were able to accomplish some of the prodigies wrought by Moses and Aaron (Ex 7:11-12; 7:22; 8:7; 8:18-19; 9:11). Close to 200 A.D., Tertullian writes, "first of all, they [the demons] make you ill; then to get a miracle out of it, they prescribe remedies either completely novel, or contrary to those in use, and thereupon withdrawing hurtful influence, they are supposed to have wrought a cure." (Apology of the Christian religion, 22). In the face of the fallen angels’ power to deceive, it is no wonder that the Church is always very slow to declare a miracle or message authentic. The devil has superhuman intelligence and is very clever, and to pretend that you can definitively judge in favour of something’s authenticity, without help, is presumptuous. To know if something is false, it suffices to know that it says something contrary to the teaching of the Church. Hence, it is easier to pronounce against visionaries than in their favour. But the mere absence of doctrinal error is not enough. There have to be other positive indications.
Apparently then you did not consider all of the newer events listed....only stating "much"....and, it is reasonable to assume that the further activity/fruits (apparently not even considered) to have influenced the archbishop in his own further personal considerations. It is not something out of place to listen to the local authority who is normally the accepted authority over any private revelations within his jurisdiction when there is something new. The rather disturbing part though is that when that authority wishes to have further study made....after so much time and additional evidence needing to be considered, even the length of time involved with these additional experiences, be denied with only a repeat of a 1951 declaration. BTW, who really is in that "close contact with Rome" esp. with a particularly enclosed congregation? And it doesn't look like any congregation, prior statement or not, has had the power to forbid those further happenings which of course have a deep effect on the local faithful which also then has an effect upon their own shepherd. Certainly not unreasonable. What "certain individuals" are exempt from abiding by the rules, Earth? That's what I'd like to know!!
Here is a little bit about Teresita from 2014 http://sirbitz.blogspot.com/2014/08/beholding-lady-who-beheld-our-lady.html People here are inferring that Cardinal Muller is lying or misrepresenting the truth.--said Dolores. I made no such accusation. I was very saddened to read about this nullification notice. It was apparently given on the Feast of the Visitation which is a sad coincidence. I am not pointing fingers at anyone, but as you expressed, you didn't know much about the Lipa apparitions, so why go full bore into a statement such as People here are inferring that Cardinal Muller is lying or misrepresenting the truth. Can't we express just a little sadness without such harsh judgment? sheesh... You get the last word, Dolores, because I'm done with my comments.
Julia, ..... Padre Pio was silenced for a time; but the people never deserted him. You're right about that. In fact it was one of those devotees who, against P. Pio's wishes, took it upon himself to go to Rome and set them straight about the Monsignor who made the phony accusations against Pio and included a description of the Msgr's own personal background! If it wasn't for that move, by a "little" one, who knows how much longer the good Padre would have been kept silent. Often these days as well, even with all the additional means of communication, the hierarchy often keeps itself from listening to those grass roots cries esp. when they have no real worldly influence to offer.
Earth, If I remember the Padre Pio story correctly, a friend of his wanted to get Pio freed from restrictions on his hearing confessions. Pio's enemy in the church was a bishop who was a homosexual. Pio's friend threatened to expose the bishop unless Pio was released from his restrictions. Padre Pio, furious at this attempt at blackmail, raged against his friend. (And "unfriended" him.) He did not want to see blackmail used to support his cause. The ends do not justify the means.
Pio may have raged against him beforehand but it was nonetheless this devotee who got the job done with actual information given to those who held the key to open the lock! I'll refrain from judging the one who acted out of feelings for the Padre and the injustice shown him. In the end, going directly to the authorities with the truth was not "blackmail".
More on the background....and rather sad events within the treatment of this phenomenon and its main characters: http://www.spirit-digest.com/Our Lady Apparitions/lowprofile.htm
I didn't say you made any accusation. In fact, I didn't address you at all until you accused me of making a strident comment. I made two posts before your accusation........... The contents of my first post: "This supposed apparition is new to me. Here's a link to the article in Spirit Daily: http://blog.spiritdaily.com/mystics/cardinal-muller-nullifies-approval-of-lipa Reading the article, I don't see why Cardinal Muller is being cast as the villain. Cardinal Muller is merely re-affirming an official declaration of the Church, signed by the Pope, in 1951. Perhaps the current Arbishop was unaware of that decision when he gave the apparitions his approval. Reading his statement in the article, he appears to have accepted the decision made in 1951, so that should be an end to it." Before making the above first post, I had read this: "Why would a German Bishop or Cardinal poke his nose into another Bishops decision. Are we supposed to ignore one and not the other. Surely those involved with Lipa have suffered enough. It breaks my heart." and this: Muller is the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. I think he's the type who would dismiss most private revelation as quickly as it reached his desk. He's the one looking for ways to discourage the openness to Medjugorje. Probably why Pope Francis is more in tune with the opinions/advice of Cardinal Schonborn." Here is the content of my second comment: 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. Prior to making that second post, I had read this: "Left to himself, I rather agree that Cardinal Muller would love to block quite a few activities associated with apparitions past and present. Fortunately, he has to stay obedient to Pope Francis. The pope has indeed indicated doubts about some (or even many) contemporary messages from Our Lady, as I also have, but the one you would love him to be negative about, Medjugorje, he will not allow any closure. Take my word for it." and in answer to this question from another poster: "So the cardinal who is head of the CDF, appointed by the Pope, is not a lawful authority?" I read this: 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. Whereupon you accused me of making strident statements! The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith has been accused of poking his nose into another Bishop's decision; being the type who would dismiss most private revelation as soon as it reached his desk; being the one looking for ways to discourage openness to Medjugorje, with a follow up from a poster saying tha the Pope wouldn't allow it as though the Cardinal and the Pope are at odds on that supposed apparition. If comments such as these can't be interpreted as an inference that the person under the kosh is lying or misrepresenting the truth, I don't know what they are meant to infer. They certainly show no consideration for the possibility that the man is faithfully doing his duty in the role entrusted to him by the Church. What I have read here goes far beyond expressing heartfelt sadness. It's smacks far more of attacking a man's character. I suggest you look elsewhere to find someone to accuse of making harsh judgements. It makes no difference to me whether you want to comment further but an apology would be appropriate in any further comment addressed to me.
+ Brothers and Sisters in Christ, Please tread carefully on the Lipa Apparition. I understand the frustration but please remember that folks from all over the world are looking at our words. Many may investigate this apparition due to words said here. When we write words we are responsible for them before God. If Cardinal Muller (Prefect for the CDF) says "no" to Lipa, then no it is. I believe in Medjugorje and Garabandal. If the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith) would tell us that these were not worthy of belief, I would obey (I would not be happy and I would indeed do some head scratching, but I would obey). This is Jesus Christ's Church and He is the head of it. Man will not confound what God wishes to proclaim. Our free will may delay the intended good effects which would come from a sooner recognition of His prophet (now the Blessed Virgin Herself), but His will WILL be done. Mary did not announce to the world that She was the "Immaculate Conception", until after Holy Mother Church had already proclaimed it. Only then did She affirm Church teaching at Lourdes. Pope Pius IX dogmatically defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854. The Blessed Virgin acknowledged this title to St. Bernadette in 1858. Mary's message from God will be acknowledged, but it will be late, and we all know that. It doesn't make it any easier, but to soldier on with obedience, is what our Lady wants / expects from us. Please do not draw others to an apparition that can cause a sin of disobedience (even if the apparition is what you feel to be true). If forum members want to vent steam over this, perhaps you can start a private conversation among yourselves that does not draw more attention to Lipa. Even if you feel that you are unsure if Cardinal Muller is right, err on the side of obedience and merit will be yours from your humility. I fault no one here for sticking up for a strong faith in Our Lady's messages. I join you in that and wonder at the many going ons in our age. Let us together take our Mother's hand, as Her children, and together in humble obedience, head for the Cross that is here and coming. Peace, Ed +
Below is the text of a sworn affidavit made by the nephew of Bishop Cesar Guerrero, one of the signatories of the 1951 ruling. Emphasis mine. Draw your own conclusions as to the implications regarding the moral force of the 1951 declaration. AFFIDAVIT I, Fr. Lorenzo Ma. Guerrero, S.J., of legal age, residing in Sta. Ana Manila, after being sworn to upon oath, depose and state: 1.That the Philippines Catholic Hierarchy issued the following Official Statement in the year 1951: “We, the undersigned Archbishops and Bishops, constituting for the purpose a special Commission, having attentively examined and reviewed the evidence and testimoniescollected in the course of repeated, long and careful investigations, have reached the unanimous conclusion and hereby officially declare that the above mentioned evidence andtestimonies exclude any supernatural intervention in the reported extraordinary happenings---including the shower of petals --- at the Carmel of Lipa.” Manila, April 6, 1951 (Signed) Gabriel M. Reyes --- Archbishop of Manila (Signed) Cesar M. Guerrero --- Bishop of San Fernando (Signed) Mariano Madriaga --- Bishop of Lingayen (Signed) Rufino Santos --- Apostolic Administrator of Lipa (Signed) Juan Sison --- Auxiliary Bishop of Nueva Segovia (Signed) Vicente P. Reyes --- Auxiliary Bishop of Manila 2.That while my uncle, Bishop Cesar Guerrero, was still alive, I heard from his lips that hesigned the above Official Statement under duress. 3.That the said Bishop had expressed his personal belief in the fact of the apparitions of Our Lady Mediatrix of All Grace in the Carmelite Convent of Lipa during the year of 1948. In witness whereof, I hereunto sign this sworn statement this 11th day of February, 1990 in the City of Manila, Philippines.(Signed) Lorenzo Ma. Guerrero, S.J. Witnesses: H. Mandadero Amelia Kison [Source: Carlo Enrico C. Tinio, Omnium Gratiarum. A Theological Investigation About the Alleged 1948 Marian Apparition in Lipa Carmel, submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Subject Introduction to the Mystery of Faith, Loyal School of Theology of Theology, Ateneo de Manila University, September 2006. 42 pages, reproduced on-line at https://www.academia.edu/3789323/Om...Alleged_1948_Marian_Apparition_in_Lipa_Carmel (consulted June 2, 2016), p. 41.]
I believe Lipa to be authentic. That is why all this is happening. I must reexamine the messages to see why Satan is so intent on stoppering them.
