I’m sad to say that if Francis et al are telling me that “med…” is kinda sorta ok it means it’s not Our Lady, and should be ignored. And can I whine about the loss of interest in reading anything longer than a substack post? Think about the treasures of Catholic writing in “long-form! I agree that Fatima has it all, and Sister Lucia’s messages in the 20s and 30s filled out the rest of what we most need to know. Repent, do penance and make reparation for self and others. Thanks, Peter for an informative review.
I am so glad you hold up Foley's book on this. I too was skeptical about the apparitions at Med..., but Foley's book clinched it for me. Further bolstering my adamant stance on Med...(sorry, it's a hard word to spell out each time) is its connection to the Catholic Charismatic Movement. One excellent thing I learned as an Evangelical Protestant was to distrust anything "charismatic." A neighbor of mine has been to Med... but I have not asked about it. He has a positive take on the place; I will note that he is a Catholic man in his 70s who is very devoted to the NO. Early in this woebegone pontificate PF actually said something I agree with, essentially mocking the Med... "Gospa" as a chatterbox (my word), which is totally unlike any of the authentic apparitions, or Our Lady in sacred scripture, for that matter.
Thank you Dr. K. for bringing up the Third Secret of Fatima. In Lucia's memoir that was written down decades before the 2000 documents about Fatima came out she clearly states that after the Mother of God revealed the third part of the Secret she told the seers that they were to tell no one about it. So Lucia asked her: "Can we tell Francisco?" She did that because while Saint Francisco could see the Apparition he couldn't hear anything that the Virgin was saying. Ergo the Holy Virgin must have actually said something and used actual words when she did it, otherwise why ask the question?
And since there are no words of the Virgin included in what was released from the Vatican in 2000 it should be obvious to absolutely everybody that their claim that this is the full text Secret is an absolute deception and a flat out lie. And it is such an obvious third-rate hoax that even a five year old should be able to see through it.
So anybody who even implies that this might be the full text of the Secret is either wholly unaware of the facts or needs some serious help.
Another excellent exposition Dr. Kwasniewski. I thank God that there are writers/scholars like yourself who can enlighten us in the confusing times. I thank Him to that despite my lack of education He has on most occasions protected me from these types of questionable practices by giving me a very sensitive nose. Through no skill of my own things like this don’t pass my smell test. Now that I too have been reading the Church Fathers and Doctors I also see how Truth is used as a cover for lies. I was especially struck by the quote about the body decomposing and we being given a glorified one. Just enough truth, twisted to sound doctrinal thus giving the other “revelations” the odor of truth. Even the apparent willingness of the Church to separate fruits from the tree a clear and deliberate misinterpretation of the words of our Lord. Diabolical indeed. We live in dangerous times. The devil is a roaring lion. Sad to see the Church succumbing to him. But as Fr. J. Curtis our pastor says. The Lord warned us we must be on watch and follow the unbroken tradition of the Church Fathers.
If you read my article last Friday, the follow-up on dancing, you'll see that we do have to be careful about a naive or facile use of "what the Fathers say" or in general what the saints say, because it's fairly easy to prove various positions by compiling quotes that will give the wrong impression or even reach the wrong conclusion. But of course, overall, we must follow the tradition as well as we can discern it, and this is what my Substack exists to help people to do.
Regarding the statement about the resurrection, what is wrong with the "Gospa's" message is not that our bodies decompose, but the implication that the glorified body will have nothing to do with the material body we had here. This is exactly contrary to the truth. Chapters 151-162 in St. Thomas Aquinas's Compendium theologiae offer a succinct account of the Church's teaching in this regard:
You are welcome Dr. Kwasniewski. Oh yes. I fully agree with you on the Fathers as well any of the saints. And I did recognized the sleight of hand in the resurrection “revelation” alright. Too often the Fathers are taken out of context, or not fully studied or people who quote them don’t understand that even they do not have perfect knowledge a case of “A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.” Which is why I decided to take a course from the Institue of Catholic Culture taught by Dr. Pepino. I can’t recommend it enough. His guidance much like yours has immensely helped me to properly navigate development of the early teaching of the Church. Oh and I never miss one of your timely and always thought provoking articles. God bless you!
Ah, that's great to hear! As a matter of fact, Dr. Pepino is my best friend nearby where I live, and we were just talking about patristics over lunch two days ago.
I truly enjoyed both of the semesters of the Patristics classes. He is so knowledgeable and personable that he made what might seem to some a dry subject lively and memorable. I have Joshua Charles to thank for the recommendation. It’s been so worth it.
My parents of blessed memory were avid Med devotees and persuaded many in my family to get on the Med-Train. I followed suit till I heard legit questions about their authenticity and I suspended belief for many years, watching and waiting. Your review of this book bolsters my tendency towards disbelief. I find more solid direction and solace in the TLM, Wisdom of the Desert Fathers, practical monastic spirituality than private revelations (intriguing as they are). I've had it with subjectivism and histrionic emotivism.
Precisely. There is abundant, rich, profound nourishment in our 2,000 year tradition, and we are being told we should read these little bulletin-board messages that endlessly repeat the same few themes in words reminiscent of sentimental children's books? No, this is not the "Gospa." Her apparitions are short, the message is potent, and the miracles are undeniable.
Thanks for this book review. I had just begun reading Michael Davies' book about Medugorje (same conclusion with damning info). I've always had misgivings about these apparitions. I must confess to reading the "Poem of the Man God" before I returned to the Church. I was greatly moved by it but never bothered reading the rather tedious "soliloquies" that seemed to contain many of the errors you mention. The work was a step forward in my way back to the Church, so I have to admit that. But, curiously, I never wanted to read it again once I did return to the Church. I guess it served its purpose, because it rekindled a fire in me to love Jesus again. It can be strange what leads us back. Yes, Fatima is all one needs!
Oh yes, this is quite true: God will use any side-path He can to lead us back to the highway of the Catholic Faith, even if it's through brambles and mud and who knows what else. But once you reach the highway of the King, you don't look back to those side-paths.
Might anyone be inclined to offer a list of meta-Medjugorge phenomena? Meaning those people, alleged apparitions/locutions/apostolates that endorse Med, so they can be held at arms length as well? The ecumenical dimension is worrying (didn’t know that) and those unCatholic statements are real red flags that would cause one to worry any promoters who accepted them.
On a slightly different topic, could you, Dr K, address those accusations made in the press conference by Fernández about St John of the Cross and Ste Thérèse of Lisieux? Or can you point to someone who responded already? Thanks so much.
Ah, I see now. The treatment of St. John and St. Therese is very superficial, and the messages of Medjugorje can in no way be compared to their mystical writings or even obiter dicta. Or rather, there is a superficial similarity - that some statements can be misunderstood and need explanation - but then, that is true of a very large number of human statements!
Thank you for this. I never felt attracted to this apparition, it always seemed "modern" and "charismatic." There was also way too much enthusiasm for it despite the warnings and measures taken by the local bishops.
I’m sad to say that if Francis et al are telling me that “med…” is kinda sorta ok it means it’s not Our Lady, and should be ignored. And can I whine about the loss of interest in reading anything longer than a substack post? Think about the treasures of Catholic writing in “long-form! I agree that Fatima has it all, and Sister Lucia’s messages in the 20s and 30s filled out the rest of what we most need to know. Repent, do penance and make reparation for self and others. Thanks, Peter for an informative review.
I am so glad you hold up Foley's book on this. I too was skeptical about the apparitions at Med..., but Foley's book clinched it for me. Further bolstering my adamant stance on Med...(sorry, it's a hard word to spell out each time) is its connection to the Catholic Charismatic Movement. One excellent thing I learned as an Evangelical Protestant was to distrust anything "charismatic." A neighbor of mine has been to Med... but I have not asked about it. He has a positive take on the place; I will note that he is a Catholic man in his 70s who is very devoted to the NO. Early in this woebegone pontificate PF actually said something I agree with, essentially mocking the Med... "Gospa" as a chatterbox (my word), which is totally unlike any of the authentic apparitions, or Our Lady in sacred scripture, for that matter.
Now I don’t have to feel uncomfortable about my thoughts on these apparitions, as I have for the past time .
Thank you Dr. K. for bringing up the Third Secret of Fatima. In Lucia's memoir that was written down decades before the 2000 documents about Fatima came out she clearly states that after the Mother of God revealed the third part of the Secret she told the seers that they were to tell no one about it. So Lucia asked her: "Can we tell Francisco?" She did that because while Saint Francisco could see the Apparition he couldn't hear anything that the Virgin was saying. Ergo the Holy Virgin must have actually said something and used actual words when she did it, otherwise why ask the question?
And since there are no words of the Virgin included in what was released from the Vatican in 2000 it should be obvious to absolutely everybody that their claim that this is the full text Secret is an absolute deception and a flat out lie. And it is such an obvious third-rate hoax that even a five year old should be able to see through it.
So anybody who even implies that this might be the full text of the Secret is either wholly unaware of the facts or needs some serious help.
Another excellent exposition Dr. Kwasniewski. I thank God that there are writers/scholars like yourself who can enlighten us in the confusing times. I thank Him to that despite my lack of education He has on most occasions protected me from these types of questionable practices by giving me a very sensitive nose. Through no skill of my own things like this don’t pass my smell test. Now that I too have been reading the Church Fathers and Doctors I also see how Truth is used as a cover for lies. I was especially struck by the quote about the body decomposing and we being given a glorified one. Just enough truth, twisted to sound doctrinal thus giving the other “revelations” the odor of truth. Even the apparent willingness of the Church to separate fruits from the tree a clear and deliberate misinterpretation of the words of our Lord. Diabolical indeed. We live in dangerous times. The devil is a roaring lion. Sad to see the Church succumbing to him. But as Fr. J. Curtis our pastor says. The Lord warned us we must be on watch and follow the unbroken tradition of the Church Fathers.
Thank you, Denise.
If you read my article last Friday, the follow-up on dancing, you'll see that we do have to be careful about a naive or facile use of "what the Fathers say" or in general what the saints say, because it's fairly easy to prove various positions by compiling quotes that will give the wrong impression or even reach the wrong conclusion. But of course, overall, we must follow the tradition as well as we can discern it, and this is what my Substack exists to help people to do.
Regarding the statement about the resurrection, what is wrong with the "Gospa's" message is not that our bodies decompose, but the implication that the glorified body will have nothing to do with the material body we had here. This is exactly contrary to the truth. Chapters 151-162 in St. Thomas Aquinas's Compendium theologiae offer a succinct account of the Church's teaching in this regard:
https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/Compendium.htm#151
You are welcome Dr. Kwasniewski. Oh yes. I fully agree with you on the Fathers as well any of the saints. And I did recognized the sleight of hand in the resurrection “revelation” alright. Too often the Fathers are taken out of context, or not fully studied or people who quote them don’t understand that even they do not have perfect knowledge a case of “A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.” Which is why I decided to take a course from the Institue of Catholic Culture taught by Dr. Pepino. I can’t recommend it enough. His guidance much like yours has immensely helped me to properly navigate development of the early teaching of the Church. Oh and I never miss one of your timely and always thought provoking articles. God bless you!
Ah, that's great to hear! As a matter of fact, Dr. Pepino is my best friend nearby where I live, and we were just talking about patristics over lunch two days ago.
I truly enjoyed both of the semesters of the Patristics classes. He is so knowledgeable and personable that he made what might seem to some a dry subject lively and memorable. I have Joshua Charles to thank for the recommendation. It’s been so worth it.
My parents of blessed memory were avid Med devotees and persuaded many in my family to get on the Med-Train. I followed suit till I heard legit questions about their authenticity and I suspended belief for many years, watching and waiting. Your review of this book bolsters my tendency towards disbelief. I find more solid direction and solace in the TLM, Wisdom of the Desert Fathers, practical monastic spirituality than private revelations (intriguing as they are). I've had it with subjectivism and histrionic emotivism.
Precisely. There is abundant, rich, profound nourishment in our 2,000 year tradition, and we are being told we should read these little bulletin-board messages that endlessly repeat the same few themes in words reminiscent of sentimental children's books? No, this is not the "Gospa." Her apparitions are short, the message is potent, and the miracles are undeniable.
Thanks for this book review. I had just begun reading Michael Davies' book about Medugorje (same conclusion with damning info). I've always had misgivings about these apparitions. I must confess to reading the "Poem of the Man God" before I returned to the Church. I was greatly moved by it but never bothered reading the rather tedious "soliloquies" that seemed to contain many of the errors you mention. The work was a step forward in my way back to the Church, so I have to admit that. But, curiously, I never wanted to read it again once I did return to the Church. I guess it served its purpose, because it rekindled a fire in me to love Jesus again. It can be strange what leads us back. Yes, Fatima is all one needs!
Oh yes, this is quite true: God will use any side-path He can to lead us back to the highway of the Catholic Faith, even if it's through brambles and mud and who knows what else. But once you reach the highway of the King, you don't look back to those side-paths.
Might anyone be inclined to offer a list of meta-Medjugorge phenomena? Meaning those people, alleged apparitions/locutions/apostolates that endorse Med, so they can be held at arms length as well? The ecumenical dimension is worrying (didn’t know that) and those unCatholic statements are real red flags that would cause one to worry any promoters who accepted them.
On a slightly different topic, could you, Dr K, address those accusations made in the press conference by Fernández about St John of the Cross and Ste Thérèse of Lisieux? Or can you point to someone who responded already? Thanks so much.
I'm afraid I didn't see anything about the comments on St. John of the Cross and Ste Thérèse. Can you lead me to a source for that?
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2024/09/19/240919i.html
Ah, I see now. The treatment of St. John and St. Therese is very superficial, and the messages of Medjugorje can in no way be compared to their mystical writings or even obiter dicta. Or rather, there is a superficial similarity - that some statements can be misunderstood and need explanation - but then, that is true of a very large number of human statements!
FWIW-IMHO
a) No wonder, then, that the Tucho Committee doesn't dissuade devotees.
b) "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds" comes to mind when this topic arises.
c) My gut has always been repulsed by the near-obsessive enthusiasm of devotees.
Thank you for this. I never felt attracted to this apparition, it always seemed "modern" and "charismatic." There was also way too much enthusiasm for it despite the warnings and measures taken by the local bishops.