Medjugorje Forum

[mamamary]

Again, the discussion seems to go in circles.

As we covered above, the letter referenced in the link above is from the rosa mystica website. It is one from a dr. miravelle who is requesting a private pilgrimage. The bishop states in the letter:

Dear Dr. M. Miravalle:

I’ve received your request about a private pilgrimage to Rosa Mystica Shrine and I’m glad to give my permission to go there in the spirit you well explained through what you wrote me.

(note: Dr. Miravalle explains that he is going to the shrine in a academic sense to study, but we do not have the text of Dr. Miravalle’s letter to confirm what that ‘spirit’ was)

I hope your pilgrimage will bring you a joyful and helpful advantage for your faith, your studies and Christian life, always in communion with the Church of Christ.
God bless you all.
+ Giulo Sanguineti


Again—this is by no means a letter reversing any previous decisions for the faithful against Mrs. Pierina’s visions in the Basilica of Montichiari by this bishop or any bishop which followed. Guilo Sanguineti is no longer bishop. The new bishop does not condone the apparitions and follows in the same decision as his predecessors.

The confusion arises because Mary venerated as “Rosa Mystica” is an ancient title and the shrines dedicated to her under this title have nothing to do with the rosa mystica apparitions of Mrs. Piernina during the 1940s or 1960s.

I suppose a similar way of looking at this would be to compare it to Emmitsburg, Maryland. This shrine was a place of Marian devotion for 150 years and the birthplace of two saints before someone claiming to be a visionary receiving messages used the environment to support her claims of visions.

There should be made a clear distinction between the two events in the Rosa Mystica situations as well.

The declaration from Bishop Foresti is as follows below. If there is another letter from this bishop, or bishops past or present of Brescia who reverse this declaration against the visions, then please post the letter.


Bruno Foresti - Archbishop of Brescia
Protocol No. 109/97
DECLARATION
Having seen the declaration of 30th June 1968, with which my predecessor of beloved memory, Bishop Luigi Morstabilini, strongly deplored that in the locality of Fontanelle di Montichiari, a devotion had been fostered and he went so far as to exhort all the faithful not to support either with publications or with pilgrimages the spreading of these devotions. They are founded on an interpretation of events which has not been objectively checked nor responsibly evaluated, therefore they are not approved.
Having taken note of all that I stated in the declaration of the 15th October 1984 in which I made public that the so called apparitions of the Madonna "Mystical Rose" at Montichiari "do not present reasons for credibility," therefore the associated devotion "is not approved and may not be practised nor fostered" and that "whoever fosters it, by spreading publications or organising pilgrimages .... upsets the believers' faith causing them to act against the guidelines of the Church."
On account of the many requests which continuously come from both Italy and abroad
I reiterate
What has been affirmed by me and by my predecessor
Brescia, 19th February 1997
+ Bruno Foresti
DIOCESAN CHANCELLERY
sec. Luigi Pezzotti
_________________
"Not to oppose erroneous doctrine is to approve it, and not to defend all true doctrine is to suppress it." -- Pope Innocent III

[ocds]

The website posting the 2004 letter from the Bishop of Brescia is not a "Rosa Mystica" website. It's a website that is a Marian e-zine. The Bishop ought to have been aware of the status of the apparition when he gave his nod to the planned pilgrimage. Why would he encourage pilgrims to attend a site that was condemned?
_________________
Maria Rosa Mystica, pray for our clergy and religious.

[davidtlig]

I think the Archbishop of Brescia and Bishop Peric of Mostar would get on very well with each other....

There is no argument that the Archbishop is not positive about the apparitions but they are not condemned.

I cannot pretend to be very knowledgeable about the apparitions but from what I have read so far, I am positive. A good page of information is at: http://www.marypages.com/MontichiariEng.htm

David

[mamamary]

it seems that 'mary's pages' doesn't really make any diferentiation whatsoever in the type of apparitions they support on their website.

conyers, ga.
http://www.marypages.com/Conyers.htm

vassula ryden
http://www.marypages.com/VassulaRyden.htm


to name a few that this website endorses.....

and david, there really is no comparision to medjugorje and the alledged apparitions of brescia. medjugorje is in the hands of the vatican.
_________________
"Not to oppose erroneous doctrine is to approve it, and not to defend all true doctrine is to suppress it." -- Pope Innocent III

[davidtlig]

Dear mamamary,

I wasn't suggesting that the www.marypages.com website was 'authoritative' but now you mention it, I do think the content of their site is very good. But their 'Vassula page' is very poor consisting only of a single link to Vassula's website plus five links to negative web pages and no other information!

As for the link to information about Conyers, I presume you view those apparitions negatively but, again, they are in no way condemned and I personally am positive about them.

Going back to the marypages.com website itself, it describes itself in the following way: "Site about church approved apparitions of Mary and unapproved Mary apparitions". I think that is a very good and honest description. The very nature of the process of Church authentication of private revelation means that most contemporary revelations will remain 'unapproved' while they take place and. of course, Medjugorje is a prime example of that.

God bless,
David

[julia60]

I still love the admin reply in another thread that said "this site promotes Our Lady of Medjugorje" and other apparitions and messages can cause confusion. Hense other apparitions discussion is not encouraged.

On the other hand, I love the chance to hear of other places where Our Lady might be truely present either now or in the past...

I went on a one day trip to the Grotto where Rosa Mystica statue was reported to have wept blood. We also visited the beautiful church..That was an experience. It is not too far from San Daniamo in the north of Italy ish!.

Just on the lighter side...Our little group was going down stone steps that lead to a well at the Rosa Mystica Grotto. You are meant to go down the steps on your knees, and say a hail Mary at each step and kiss the step. But guess what, there were a load of foreigners laughing at our group, because we were kissing the wrong steps. We had to start again and say the hail Mary's and kiss another lot of steps which also lead down to the well. I don't knwo if it is true; but it can't hurt to ask Our Lady to look after the priests and religeous, any where any time...It is all about faith and trust in the Good God and His mother.
_________________
Come O Holy Spirit, please descend upon us all, through the most powerful intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Your most chaste and well beloved spouse.
Love from Julia!

[mamamary]

[davidtlig]

Dear mamamary,

[mamamary]

this thread will be locked. vassula ryden, nancy fowler and other visionaries can not be discussed per forum rule:

Starting now, and for an indefinite period, only prophecies from Catholic saints, blesseds, venerables and Church-approved apparitions are allowed in this section.
_________________
"Not to oppose erroneous doctrine is to approve it, and not to defend all true doctrine is to suppress it." -- Pope Innocent III