I know very many very good people for whom the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje have played an enormously important role in their conversions and/or devotional life. I also know many people, whose discernment I greatly respect, who have been extremely skeptical about the phenomenon. When I have investigated the negative claims they have generally been vindicated. I have long heard advocates of Medjugorje say that the Holy See had suspended the authority of the diocesan bishop and the local episcopate in regard to the alleged apparitions. I always ask to see the document that effected this and it has never been forthcoming.  It is now clear from the US Nuncio’s letter on behalf of the CDF that it does not exist. One of the foremost signs of a false private revelation is refusal to submit to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. Some devotees of Medjugorje I know have cited (apparently authentic) counter-examples. Thus such disobedience must be only a strong sign of in-authenticity rather than a proof. I know a priest who used to accompany pilgrimages to Medjugorje but openly denied the authenticity of the revelations. Another priest I know who lived in Bosnia for some time summarized the view of many such persons as “I am sure the Holy Spirit is present in Medjugorje, I’m just not convinced Our Lady has ever been there”. The question is, if the most recent letter is a trailer for a formal rejection of Medjugorje by the CDF, how will its devotees react? The loose expressions used by the Pope in his two recent interviews and the perception, fostered by liberals and the MSM, that he is ambiguous in his support for the Pro-Life movement and his opposition to the progress of organised sodomy could easily be used to justify some sort of mutiny. A papal approval of a revelation does not guarantee its authenticity (although the canonization of the visionary effectively does) only that it is not unreasonable to accept it and it won’t do you any harm. A condemnation is different, it really does command obedience from the faithful. If it were specified that the revelations were doctrinally deviant it would also command assent. If a revelation is inauthentic there are three obvious explanations: fraud, hysteria or the devil. Hysteria seems unlikely in this case. If fraud is the explanation then the motive seems obvious as the financial benefits are clear. If the explanation were the third and most disturbing option then the question arises ‘why would the evil one perpetrate a deception which has occasioned so many conversions’? The opponents of Medjugorje have often suggested that this moment is precisely the end game prepared for. A condemnation of Medjugorje would be a massive test of faith and obedience for many pious souls. We must prepare ourselves for a perfect storm.

13_11_06_Vigano_Medjogurje

The unthinkable happened at noon today [2nd July]. It appears we now have a Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Müller who himself publicly dissents from certain Doctrines of the Faith. He does not believe in Our Lady’s Virginity in partu, contrary to the teaching of Vatican II (Lumen Gentium: 57 and the Popes, Councils and Doctors cited in support of that doctrine in the accompanying footnote 10). Müller’s reduction of this de fide physical miracle to a generic statement about the influence of “grace . . . on human nature” is the classic demythologizing tactic.

Even more astonishingly, Abp. Müller also apparently holds a doctrine of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist that is Lutheran (at best): the consecrated Species are not the true Body and Blood of Christ in his transfigured (risen) corporality; rather, the Lord just becomes “present” in what remains bread and wine.

Müller’s view seems impossible to distinguish from that condemned as heresy by the Council of Trent (cf. Dz 884 = DS 1652). Pope Paul VI insisted on this dogma in his 1964 Encyclical Mysterium Fidei, and again in what he considered the most important document of his pontificate, the 1968 Solemn Profession of Faith. Here the Holy Father proclaimed: “Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine.”

This perennial Catholic doctrine is repeated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ##1374-1377.  This is to say nothing of Müller’s sympathies for the liberation theology of his close friend Gustavo Gutierrez, or his reported statement that “Protestants are already members of the Church” – a position that would be clearly contrary to Pius XII’s teaching in Mystici Corporis as to what constitutes “real membership” of Christ’s Church.

The following is taken from Müller’s Wikipedia entry.

Eucharist: In 2002, Bishop Müller published the book “Die Messe – Quelle des christlichen Lebens” (St. Ulrich Verlag, Augsburg). In the book, he says : “In reality, the body and blood of Christ do not mean the material components of the human person of Jesus during his lifetime or in his transfigured corporality. Here, body and blood mean the presence of Christ in the signs of the medium of bread and wine.”

Liberation Theology Müller was also a pupil of Gustavo Gutiérrez, the “father” of Latin-American liberation theology, with whom he has a long and close friendship. Commenting on Guitierrez, Müller stated: “The theology of Gustavo Gutiérrez, independently of how you look at it, is orthodox because it is orthopractic and it teaches us the correct way of acting in a Christian fashion since it comes from true faith.” It is important to note that Gutiérrez’s thoughts were never censured by the Holy See although it was asked that he modify a few of his writings.[5]

Mariology: In his 900-page work “Katholische Dogmatik. Für Studium und Praxis der Theologie” (Freiburg. 5th Edition, 2003), Müller says that the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is “not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth […], but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature.”

May Heaven preserve the Church against the gates of Hell in this dark hour.

(Taken from The Remnant, and written by ‘A Concerned Catholic Priest’, whose identity I know and of whose reliability I have no doubt)