Talk:Medjugorje/Archive 1

message: I'm new to Wikipedia. Saw things right off the bat wrong in this article. There are other things I have to research as well. Here are some things that need to be removed. Also there are objectively good things that need to be added. 
----
---"While the girls initially reported that the lady said she would only come back 
"three or four more times", they continued to report daily visions long after 
they were supposed to have ceased."---
Because..
"When the apparitions began visitors began speaking to the 
visionaries about these other apparitions. From what they heard from these visitors 
they assumed that Our Lady would appear for the same short length of time. This was 
merely an assumption and proved incorrect. The important point here is that Our Lady 
did not say she would only appear for a short time."
http://www.medjugorje.org/faq.htm#no23
------
---"and continue to claim daily visitations as of 2006."---
Well known that only a few of them claim apparitions now and for some time. 
------
---'promised the six visionaries ten “secrets”---
The secrets were not a promise OR this is misleading. 
------
--- "These ten secrets, which will affect the Church and the world, were written 
on a special parchment listing the timing and description of each event." ---
The secrets may be different for each visionary OR are different for each visionary. Only Mirjana's 
is written on a special parchment.  No one can see the message unless they are supposed to because its claimed to be miraculous. This would theoretically be important to mention so that nutty people don't go about searching for it and try to read the message.  
------
---"be left on Apparition Mountain"---
I think that should be Apparition Hill.
------
---"One of the messages of the "Gospa" delivered only to the seers is:"---
What does this sentence mean?
------
---"They say that no amount of prayer, fasting, or good works can entirely prevent the dire events 
forecast in the secrets."---
I think that's only the 9th and 10th secrets. 
"The ninth and tenth secrets are grave matters. They are a chastisement for the sins of the world. The punishment is inevitable because we can not expect the conversion of the entire world."
http://www.medjugorje.org/overview.htm
------
---"He will fast and pray for six days."---  
7 not 6 days. 
"Ten days before each of the warnings, she will advise the priest she chose for this task (Father Petar Ljubicic), who 
will then fast and pray with Mirjana for seven days."
http://www.medjugorje.org/overview.htm
------
--- "She insists that the painful events for humanity are very near, and that the important thing is to pray, to pray in the family, and to pray for the young who do not believe." ---
Very very misleading.
"Those who are still alive will have little time for conversion. For that reason, the Blessed Virgin calls for urgent conversion and reconciliation."
http://www.medjugorje.org/overview.htm
-----
Medjugorje is not condemned. The Vatican has set up a new commission on Medjugorje. 
http://www.cathnews.com/news/607/135.php
------
--"According to Catholic authors E. Michael Davies and Michael Jones, it is possible that the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje were used by the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Croat Franciscan Order to challenge the authority of the diocese."---
"it is possible" indicates something that is made-up. Unprofessional wording. 
------
--"Jones investigated the background of the alleged visionaries and found that they were a group of "punkers", which in that region meant that they listened to rock and roll, wore jeans and smoked cigarettes (in fact, they had confessed that they had gone up the hill to smoke, rather than to look for sheep, on the first night)."---
This is purely to make Medjugorje look bad. 
-----
---"Jones speculates"--- 
Unprofessional wording. 
------
---"Because Church Law leaves the question of whether apparitions are valid to the local Bishop, this statement on the part of Bishop Peric is the declaration that the claimed apparitions cannot be considered valid by the Roman Catholic Church."---
The bishops authority was taken away by then Cardinal Ratzinger. 
------ 
- Juan T. 
I'm new to Wikipedia and a believer in the apparitions at Medjugorje. I see that there are a few things to correct. One of which is that there is a new vatican commission on Medjugorje. Evidently there are things that are not true that are being posted. Objectivity is obviously important. Rumor and falsehood is not.
- Juan T. 
------
I still maintain that the best translation of zapadnohercegovački is not West-Herzegovina, but as long as the link isn't broken, I won't bother fixing it. --Joy [shallot] 10:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE REMOVE THESE THINGS 

message: I'm catholic myself but i think that comentaries like "All Catholics must respect and obey what the Church teaches, rather than follow false apparitions out of pure emotion." or "Medjugorje fanatics" doesn't belong to a equanimous resource like the wikipedia. Should be corrected.
Josesito78 (j_chavez_s@hotmail.com)
I think the entire Criticism section is biased and should be removed. No criticism should be necessary if the main body of the article is objective. --Ronconte 22:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've change the text to say that the Vatican has not decided the matter definitively. --Ronconte 20:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, come on, I said "perhaps." And as a matter of fact, the priests went on record that they did encourage it. --Bluejay Young 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The alleged messages from the Blessed Mother repeat several times that all religions are paths to God and the Catholic Church is only one of them. This goes against established criteria that any apparition of Mary, angels, Jesus or whoever has to completely agree with the R.C. Church in all particulars before it can be approved by the R.C. Church. --Bluejay Young 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  little bit too passionate 

message: Acortis 18:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, come on, I said "perhaps." And as a matter of fact, the priests went on record that they did encourage it. --Bluejay Young 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The alleged messages from the Blessed Mother repeat several times that all religions are paths to God and the Catholic Church is only one of them. This goes against established criteria that any apparition of Mary, angels, Jesus or whoever has to completely agree with the R.C. Church in all particulars before it can be approved by the R.C. Church. --Bluejay Young 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many opinions 

message: Some improvements have been made following my last suggestions. Work still remains to be done.
1) It is not clear WHY "[Pope John Paul II] ... never ruled officially in favor of the apparitions."
The reason is that was simply not in its authority as the "apparitions" are ongoing (to the date I am writing 17-March-2006). Therefore, according to Church's regulations, he could not possibly rule in favor it. 
Among the "some Medj. supporters" you might want to mention the declarations of Mons. Maurillo Kreiger, 
\begin[quote]
Mons. Maurillo Kreiger, former bishop of Florianopolis (Brazil), visited Medjugorje four times. His first visit was in 1986. He writes as follows:"In 1988, I was with eight other bishops and thirty three priests on spiritual retreat in the Vatican. The Holy Father knew that many of us were going to Medjugorje afterwards. After a private mass with the Pope, before leaving Rome, he said, without having been asked anything,"Pray for me in Medjugorje". On another occasion, I told the Pope "I am going to Medjugorje for the fourth time". He concentrated his thoughts and said, "Medjugorje, Medjugorje, it`s the spiritual heart of the world". On the same day I spoke with other Brazilian bishops and the Pope at lunch time and I asked him:"Your holiness, can I tell the visionaries that you send your blessing?" He answered:"Yes yes", and embraced me.
\end[quote]
this link contains other non-anonimous unofficial declarations by other trustworthy persons.
2) "Others have suggested that ... " , provide a link for this "anonimous opinion" to make it substantial as a "fact" or remove.
3) "Some critics argue against particular messages, such as those which say positive things about other religions, suggesting that all are equally God's children."
Give names to the "Some critics" and provide a direct link to the "messages" which are questioned. 
The sentence is also not well structured as it is not clear WHO is "suggesting that all are equally God's children": is the "some critics" or the "messages"?
:The alleged messages from the Blessed Mother repeat several times that all religions are paths to God and the Catholic Church is only one of them. This goes against established criteria that any apparition of Mary, angels, Jesus or whoever has to completely agree with the R.C. Church in all particulars before it can be approved by the R.C. Church. --Bluejay Young 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: This apparition has been condemned. The article is skewed in it's PoV. It is written to argue that this is an open invistigation, such an event is very very very unlikely. In my experience, the CHurch will rarely open an investigation after such an official condemnation. Dominick (TALK) 13:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am repeating the CHurch's official statement, not my own. If the local Ordinary condemns this as not supernatural, then my saying it is condemned because the local ordinary condemned the apparition does not require me to have any authority in the Church. I have worked professionally for a Catholic Aposolate, and indeed, I understand the processes in these matters. This is not a sweeping statement, once it is condemned thats it. Dominick (TALK) 13:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is NOT a condemned apparition 

message: Acortis
I tried to fall in love with wikipedia, I tried to believe that this is a democratic encyclopedia, I tried to being factual and not distorted correcting factual information and removing unproved and outlandish claims, I tried to put more factual information ALL of which was substantiated by the appropriate sources and guess what??? "EXPERTS" in the field feel themselves in the right to judge what a commision says, to include unreferenced claims and so on.
I have been in Medjugorje, I know what it is. In the end, each of us is left alone with his own conscience, and I do not want to mingle in this mud.
So long, wiki!
:The problem is not if you think the apparitions are real or not. This article will be sileent on that issue, because wikipedia has no opinion on that matter. The point is it is easily shown by citation that this apparition were condemned by the local Bishop, and unless the Pope overturns this, that is final. If you have some citation that states this is not the case, you should post a link. I have pointed to the Bishop's documents, private letters, and to the CDF findings. This is not wikipedia's fault, nor are they my documents or opinions. Sorry you think you have to leave wiki for that reason. Dominick (TALK) 16:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I tried