Archbishop Viganò – 25 Years Ago Our Lady Confirmed Fatima Message in a New Apparitioneditor
Our discussion below raises serious question marks about this alleged apparition, summed up by one commentator who writes: Fatima remains for us the approved and appropriate apparition for these times.
Original post follows…
As well as the warning of possible war, note, in particular, these words of Our Lady: “I am giving you painful news… a danger looms over the Holy Father, a fierce attack by Satan.”
Archbishop Viganò adds:
It is important to know that Jessica Gregori, the daughter of the family who witnessed these apparitions and supernatural events, was given by Our Lady the content of the third secret of Fatima and that this message was then passed on to Pope John Paul II at the time. She herself was able to meet, in 1996, with Sister Lucia of Fatima and to compare with her the messages they received concerning the third secret. They matched.
Is it surprising that this confirmation of the Fatima Message was given 25 years ago? Or is it more surprising that any Catholic – especially popes and bishops – need a reminder?
Very interesting: I’d wager that the drop of sweet balm that fell on Abp. VIgano’s head at the Grigori grotto was responsible for his conversion to Tradition.
Bishop Grillo: I wonder if any relation to the Grillo who, as we recently discussed, was responsible for the criminal document banning the Traditional Mass.
I wondered, too, if Bishop Grillo would be related to the Grillo responsible for the “criminal document” banning the TLM. It could be a common name over there, not sure.
I find this very interesting indeed!
I find it hugely interesting – and quite concerning given the warning that there could be a third world war unless God’s will is fulfilled as set out by Our Lady in this Italian apparition. Obviously, the supernatural/religious parts of these messages are the most important and the key to world peace, but given the track record of the popes on Fatima, the danger of God having to resort to permitting war is very real IMHO.
If Our Lady hadn’t mentioned Fatima, I would have been less inclined to believe this apparition but that clinched it for me and the fact that Jessica met Sr Lucia and compared their “third secret” messages and they matched is another clincher.
We can’t claim ignorance – God is well warning us, and we ignore these prophecies at our peril.
I’m really concerned about this – Civitavecchia is a Medjugorje spin-off – the statue involved was even one of ‘Our Lady of Medjugorje’ and was purchased there. The tears of blood on the statue were analysed as human male blood and the father of the family, has to date not provided a DNA sample. Would God and Our Lady use a statue from a patently false apparition to give a genuine heavenly message? If this is so much about Fatima, why wasn’t a statue of Our Lady of Fatima used? From Wikipedia “In 1995, a Madonna statue appeared to weep blood in the town of Civitavecchia in Italy. About 60 witnesses testified to witnessing the phenomenon. The local bishop said that he himself had seen it weep. The blood on the statue was later found to be male. The statue’s owner, Fabio Gregori, refused to take a DNA test. After the Civitavecchia case, dozens of reputedly miraculous statues were reported. Almost all were shown to be hoaxes, where blood, red paint, or water was splashed on the faces of the statues.
I know the Guardian paper is left-wing and anti-Catholic, but read this article on Civitavecchia – it contains some very salient points: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/dec/09/weekend7.weekend1 (PS You have to register but it is free – not a paywall).
As much as I admire Abp Vigano, he’s not infallible on these matters and he’s not even the local Ordinary in Civitavecchia so has no authority over this affair.
I have read that the local Ordinary approved Civitavecchia, but Rome has remained silent, but this means next to nothing these days. The local Ordinary at one time approved ‘Our Lady of All Nations’ at Amsterdam which has now been condemned by the Holy See and the local Ordinary. These things are not infallible and decisions on apparitions can (and have been) reversed – ‘Our Lady of Lipa’ in the Philippines is another example – https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/34064/the-curious-case-of-the-lipa-marian-apparitions. I am really sorry that Abp Vigano has got publicly tangled up with this Civitavecchia issue, it just muddies the waters. This is a more pro-Civitavecchia article written in a Catholic magazine, but even so, one can see plenty of warning signs, if you look closely enough: https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2020/08/25/news/our-lady-of-civitavecchia-25-years-on-1.39230135. And just how did this child from Civitavecchia allegedly get to see Sister Lucia when she was expressly forbidden to meet with members of the public without formal consent from the CDF?
PS Bear in mind when reading the above link from http://www.lampasta.it that “the renowned exorcist Fr Gabriel Amorth (RIP)” referred to was also a supporter of Medjugorje.
Thank you SO much for these two posts. But for Archbishop Vigano’s input, I’d have been much more sceptical. That and the claim about the Third Secret “matching” etc, and I allowed myself to be fooled. Can’t thank you enough for your early input.
I will send the link to this thread to John Henry Weston – the only other time I ever emailed him, he replied promptly and courteously, And if I can find a way to email it directly to Archbishop Vigano, I will do so.
I would only add that I had the very same thought that you express regarding Fr Amorth (RIP).
Again, sincere thanks. I really will have to think about moving you up the pay scale (from £zero to £six zeros!)
Some Minutes Later…
I have emailed John-Henry, but unable to find a way of contacting Archbishop Vigano on the speediest of searches. I did ask John-Henry to pass on the information in the (likely) event that I would be unable to contact him directly. Here is the text of my email to Lifesite…
I have posted a blog thread over at Catholic Truth (in Scotland), using your material on the alleged apparition in Italy. Because I do trust your journalism and, of course, admire Archbishop Vigano, I accepted the very likely truth of all that you reported. Now, I think differently. We have an English blogger, username Westminster Fly, who is something of an expert on apparitions. I think you would want to scroll down at the link which follows to read his well documented refutation of “Our Lady of Cit…”
I will try to find a direct link for the Archbishop but in the (likely) event that I fail, I trust you will pass on this information to him.
God bless your wonderful work (I regard this as a “blip” for the same reason that I excuse my own readiness to believe it!) Ends.
I have now read all three linked articles and I agree with you to some extent. I agree, for example, that nothing is finalised by the Vatican on this particular apparition and that diocesan bishops are not infallible in these matters of reported apparitions.
Having said this, there are some points you made that require clarification. The first is that a statue of Our Lady which is later the subject of miraculous claims cannot be undermined or dismissed on the grounds that it was purchased from a stall at a well-known Marian hoax site – in this case Medjugorje. The image purchased, presumably prior to its being blessed by a priest, is a perfectly Traditional looking image of Our Lady, so the Medjugorje origin of its purchase doesn’t really impact on the possibility that something supernatural occurred with it.
The next point for clarification is that the message of Civitavecchia is a perfectly Catholic message – very consistent with Quito, Fatima and Church teaching. Likewise the warning about the Masonic assault on the Church and the Christian family. It bears little to no resemblance to the Modernist garbage purportedly spoken by Our Lady of Medjugorje. In this regard it is worth noting also that there is no ‘daily drop’ of Messages from heaven with Civitavecchia like there are with Medjugorje, which latter now amounts to somewhere around the 50,000 messages mark. Nor is the family in Civitavecchia publicly blessing and touching the people on a daily basis, as though exalted heavenly beings, while making a small fortune for themselves in the process.
The next point of clarification is to state that Archbishop Vigano is no emotional fool in these matters – he claims to have personally witnessed a miraculous event with this image. Then there’s Bishop Grillo who, by his own testimony, was initially extremely hostile to the claim until he too witnessed the miracle as he held the statue in his hands.
The male blood that was found under DNA testing seems to be a little sketchy in that one report says a proper DNA test was not conducted under the usual criteria, while another speaks of the blood of an early 30s male with a strong hint of female DNA also involved. This would be perfectly consistent with the blood of Our Lord which had only the Blessed Virgin as its source.
It’s worth noting also that what was supposedly declared by Our Lady at Civitavecchia has, without doubt, come to pass, and is even now unfolding throughout the world and the Church. Again, it is perfectly consistent with Quito and Fatima.
As for the girl who is said to have visited Sister Lucy to compare her Message with the Third Secret of Fatima, that is also possible. Archbishop Vigano certainly seems to believe that such a meeting took place and it is worth reminding ourselves that certain privileged persons were granted access to Sister Lucy for many years prior to her eventual isolation. It could have happened!
The few things that trouble me, however, are the recounting of the story of how Our Lord emerged from an image of the Divine Mercy in a chapel and walked towards the mother of that family to discourse with her. We know that this image of the Divine Mercy is, at best, dubious. I was also uncomfortable with the author of the piece at the last link you provided. He spoke of the conciliar Popes as though they were the holiest of Popes when, in fact, they have all undermined the faith by their Modernist errors. And he reiterated the falsehood that heaven requires a consecration of the world by the Popes and bishops when we know for certain that Our Lady specifically asked for a consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart. So this person’s interpretation of events is completely skewed and only helps to perpetuate the suppression of a specific consecration of Russia.
As for the Wikipedia content, anyone could have written that up. In fact, I would take short odds on Cardinal Bertone being the author of that piece. He was a renowned enemy of the Message of Fatima and, if Archbishop Vigano is to be believed, of the claimed messages of Civitavecchia also.
The best I can say in conclusion is that I keep an open mind with a leaning towards belief in this message of Civitavecchia. With anti-Marian Modernist enemies in high places in the Church and a world whose authorities are largely atheists out to rubbish any claims of supernatural events, we have to cautiously balance their claims against those of a trusted Archbishop of Tradition. If we judge by the bitter fruits of what is unfolding right now in the Church and the world, then there’s more in favour of Civitavecchia than against it. We should not dismiss either the very critical mention of China in those messages, although we’re not told in what context that nation was mentioned.
You said “The image purchased, presumably prior to its being blessed by a priest, is a perfectly Traditional looking image of Our Lady, so the Medjugorje origin of its purchase doesn’t really impact on the possibility that something supernatural occurred with it.” I disagree on this point. The Citvitavecchia image is an exact replica of the widely spread image of the “Our Lady of Medjugorje” statue, exactly like the statue at Medjugorje outside St James church: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-statue-of-virgin-mary-in-front-of-the-church-of-saint-james-she-is-132471779.html.
Athanasius and WF,
I have to confess, that when I went to look for an image of “Our Lady of Civitavecchia”, I kept getting this one, with the “blood” – hence I chose a separate photo of Archbishop Vigano with another image of Our Lady… It did strike me, as with the Fr Amorth issue, that, but for the intervention of Archbishop Vigano, I would have previously tended to dismiss the claims due to the undignified statue with blood “tears”, alone. I would not normally consider that image to be a fitting depiction of Our Lady.
Indeed, I recall a Protestant friend saying to me some years ago, that the real miracle these days would be to find a statue that isn’t crying! I had to agree!
That link to lampasta isn’t working.
Also – another point – Sister Lucia was forbidden to reveal the Third Secret to anyone at that stage – I can’t see her ‘matching it up’ with some girl, because that would mean having to reveal it. Sorry – none of this adds up. I also noted that the original LifeSite article only mentioned the Medjugorje connection once very briefly in passing, and even Abp Vigano appears to dismiss it:
“LifeSite: The statue of Our Lady that wept tears had originally been bought in Medugorje. Do you see a deeper connection between these two places and apparitions?
Many people have tried to establish links between the two realities, starting from the material origin of the statue that wept and the second, identical to the first. The Gregori family, custodians of the whole event, have always been very firm in avoiding any manipulation. They have always testified to what they received in the messages, and in them there is an explicit reference only to Fatima and to no other event. As for the external signs, the images that are the object of inexplicable phenomena, there are not only the two statues of the Virgin Mary but also a statue of Our Lady of Fatima, an image of Padre Pio, and even nature around the small grotto. Therefore, to trace the event in Civitavecchia back to a link extrapolated from the material origin of the statues appears somewhat forced.”
Sister Lucy may simply have looked at the message of Civitavecchia and issued a conclusion as to whether or not it matched up with the Third Secret. At any rate, the girl who was apparently given this message is, like Sister Lucy, bound to secrecy. That may have allowed her access to the actual Third Secret of Fatima. Quite a few people have read that Secret, although all clerical as far as I know, but they first had to make a vow never to reveal it to the public.
A rather ironic vow since Our Lady intended it to be made public by 1960, latest.
On reflection, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about this. Part of me thinks I ought to have researched this more before posting the thread, but another part of me think it’s an important and valuable discussion because it serves to remind us (well, me, anyway) to brush up on my “Catholic scepticism” about alleged apparitions and to remember that even the best of the clergy and hierarchy can fall into errors in this field.
If you promise not to get mad at me, I’ll share my next bar of Galaxy with you 😀
You’re right, it is good for all of us to discuss these kinds of apparitions in light of Tradition and Church teaching. I think this thread has been very informative, even if we all remain unconvinced.
By the way, I’d sell my granny into slavery for a half bar of Galaxy! It used to be a whole bar but with the economy being a bit flat it’s down to just a half bar. It will be bib on and granny off!
Half-a-bar of Galaxy – what you might call a Star Deal! Done and dusted!
Editor & WF
I see what you mean about the statue. Have you noticed how the Modernists hate beauty in churches and statues, they are attracted to plainness and ugliness in decor? Anyway, the statue of Medjugorje, whilst not the most attractive of Marian images, is not that ugly either – just plain.
If, as WF suggests, this whole matter is a hoax or worse then Archbishop Vigano and Bishop Grillo have been first hand witnesses to a supernatural event which is not heavenly. I find that a bit hard to believe and so my mind remains open. Bottom line is that Fatima remains for us the approved and appropriate apparation for these times.
St Paul tells us that The devil can make himself appear as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14) so we can’t be too surprised that even bishops are sometimes taken in by a false supernatural event. He targets someone like Archbishop Vigano because he is standing out from the crowd in all sorts of ways at this time. If he can shake his credibility, that would be good for him, the father of lies.
I totally agree with your final words – “Fatima remains for us the approved and appropriate apparition for these times.” That’s a big uptick!
“… Fatima remains for us the approved and appropriate apparation for these times.”
Game, set and match!
I am surprised that the father of the family refused to give blood for DNA – that makes me write it off, I’m afraid. If genuine, there is nothing to fear from the investigative process IMHO.
I find this happens sometimes in traditional circles – people who are spot on in so many other aspects get taken in by one or other of the false or doubtful apparitions. Even Fr Gruner used to mention the highly doubtful Garabandal in a positive sense. Many people (including myself initially) accepted Akita as probably being genuine, but then the more you look into it, the less likely it seems.
Much like Civitavecchia / Medjugorje, the weeping statue of Akita was also based on an exact image of the now totally condemned “Our Lady of All Nations” apparitions https://gloria.tv/post/SkZP99iq74jk2z8iARMGbf9oH and similarly the local Akita Ordinary witnessed apparent weepings and eventually gave it approval (although I understand the Japanese Bishops’ Conference are peddling back on that decision). Also, the alleged Akita seer wasn’t a Medjugorje-type globe-trotting money grabber either – in fact, she has been very much out of the public eye. Also – at a glance – the messages given at Akita are largely consistent with genuine Marian messages and people like Fr Gruner, Christopher Ferrara etc have regularly quoted them as being genuine.
It’s not a very clear picture, but anyone can see that the Civitavecchia statue in question https://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping138.html is an exact replica of the Medjugorje image. Like the one I previously posted taken outside St James Church, Medjugorje – repeated here: https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-statue-of-virgin-mary-in-front-of-the-church-of-saint-james-she-is-132471779.html The right hand is on the breast and the left hand is being held open (except someone has draped a rosary over the Civitavecchia statue in this image). Even the folds on the gown are the same – including the part of the veil with three folds in it, which ends just below the right hand. There’s no question that this is a Medjugorje image, and not some generic image of Our Lady. I’m also suspicious about the allegation that St Padre Pio prompted him to buy it. I couldn’t see the saintly friar hanging around Medjugorje piety shops advising priests on their purchases. Sorry if this sounds flippant, but there is so much wrong with this.
Yes, that’s obviously the same statue. The Devil is working overtime, really, to take attention away from the authentic Fatima Message. That was the other issue that made me pause at first reading – the request for the consecration of Italy with no mention of Russia.
And you have just given the most recent example of why I NEVER quote or cite Padre Pio. I’ve never known any saint in the entire history of the Church, who has been so quoted as saying the most crackpot things. I’ve never been able to work it out, but I’ve always instinctively avoided quoting him on anything, at any time.
Your “flippant” comment about him isn’t flippant given that you are answering the claim that the saint urged the priest to buy the image at a Medjugorje piety shop. Yeah right!
I noticed that too – no mention of the Russian consecration but a request for the consecration of Italy. Yet, Italy was consecrated to Our Lady in 2019.
That’s interesting about the Italian consecration having been made in 2019. Church Militant does have its uses, after all 😀
Yes, I have a bit of difficulty with the Padre Pio element as well. I think Padre Pio would have had better taste in Marian statues for a start!
LOL! I agree about Padre Pio’s taste in statues!
This story is very puzzling on a number of fronts. It sounds like the tears of blood are fraudulent, and yet Bishop Grillo, having kept the statue in his closet for a time, also witnessed the blood after sequestering the statue. Also, the idea of Our Lady weeping blood goes against the sensus fidelium, since it was Our Lord who sweated blood in the Garden, and there is no record of blood issuing from Our Lady, neither scriptural nor traditional nor apparitional, as far as I am aware.
What about the father of this family? Is he, or anyone else in the family, a Medjugorje believer?
Why would Our Lady merely repeat the Fatima messages?
I would go back and review the Westen video to note other puzzles, but work calls, and I’d have to admit that I find Westen’s speaking style somewhat annoying, though I can’t put my finger on why.
The fact that the girl’s father refused to give DNA to compare the blood, is enough for me to write it off. Why would anyone not co-operate fully with an investigation? The link with Medjugorje is another red flag. I think the Fatima connection is the devil’s way of doing what he has been doing for years, trying to undermine Fatima.
Archbishop Vigano, if I recall correctly, stated that the father offered to give a DNA sample, even paying for it himself if necessary, in order to clear his reputation from any suggestions of fraud. I would need to read the entire transcript again and I really don’t have the time right now.
Laura & Athanasius,
I took a minute to skim the text of the interview and found the Archbishop saying this:
“They carried out all sorts of research and examination on the liquid, on the statue and in the homes of the Gregori family and their relatives. Fabio Gregori himself pushed for these investigations to be carried out, because he wanted the truth to be revealed and to protect his family, even to the point of proposing to mortgage their house in order to pay for the very expensive DNA testing that needed to be done. ”
The archbishop goes on to say that when the local Bishop changed his mind in favour of the alleged apparition, he cancelled the need for the DNA test and launched a Theological Commission instead. So, it’s not that the father refused the DNA test – apparently he was even willing to pay for it, but the Bishop cancelled that test.
There are too many questions raised, however, in my view. Where Fatima is clear-cut this one is muddied in a number of ways, so I’m passing on it. Fatima, as you say, Athanasius, is all we need – that is the approved and central apparition for these times. Anything else – unless something as clear-cut and unquestionable as Fatima is revealed – is a distraction. The work of the Devil, in other words.
For the record, having received no acknowledgement of receipt of my email to John-Henry, I emailed a second time, again including the link to this thread, asking for confirmation of receipt. I would be scandalised if I thought Lifesite would not be willing to alert readers to the points raised in this discussion. I will post any response if and when I receive it.
I think perhaps we have been looking at the issue on this thread through the Abp Vigano lens perhaps a bit too much, possibly because of the John Westen video. Abp Vigano could just be a pawn in all this, as could be the local Ordinary. Up until this Abp Vigano video, Civitavecchia was all but dead and I never used to see or read anything about it any more, after the initial flurry of interest took place. Someone obviously wanted interest in the events rekindled. But the events could be preternatural, i.e. diabolical, with the sole aim of irrevocably linking Medjugorje and Fatima, as Medjugorjians have been trying to do since it began – even alleging that Pope John Paul II said that “Medjugorje is the continuation of Fatima” (which I think sadly is probably true, that he did say that. A Bishop Hnilica has confirmed that Pope John Paul II said that to him). All these things serve to lend credence to Medjugorje, and will bring Fatima into disrepute, when Medjugorje is fully exposed and condemned as a fraud. This could be the sole end game of the Civitavecchia affair.
Another point – if something as important as truth or falsehood and possible deception of the faithful is at stake, why didn’t the diocese pay for Fabio Gregori’s DNA test? They’re not that much money. If I’d have been the local Ordinary, I would have offered diocesan funds to clear this matter up immediately.
The cost of DNA tests requiring the father to mortgage his home, struck me as really strange since ordinary working people get them quite routinely (sad to say, these days) especially in the USA where civil court cases require confirmation of paternity before awarding money to the mother. As you can tell, I used to watch too much Judge Judy! Haven’t seen her for centuries now, but that was a normal part of many court cases, and disproportionate pricing is not something I remember being raised.
Editor – Exactly. You said earlier “The archbishop goes on to say that when the local Bishop changed his mind in favour of the alleged apparition, he cancelled the need for the DNA test and launched a Theological Commission instead.” This just sounds like whimsy, based on emotion. It’s not very logical or thorough behaviour. Theological Commissions are made up of fallible human beings, but DNA accuracy is very high. I would have thought that anyone acting dispassionately, logically and thoroughly, and not moved by emotions perhaps brought about by feeling ‘privileged’ to be part of these events, would have ordered the DNA test as part of the Commission, not abandon one for the other.
I hope LifeSite will take a closer look at this. But I fear that the Church is in such a state that when a good prelate like Abp Vigano comes along, some people tend to cling to their every utterance as though it were Gospel, and this is dangerous, because those who might question something the good prelate says immediately becomes ‘suspect’ in the minds of some. I also think Archbishop Vigano wouldn’t want that.
I agree – I am more and more convinced that this is, sadly, the work of the Devil, trying to distract from Fatima. The fact that John Henry Weston continues to ignore my messages, doesn’t help to inspire confidence either. It’s a pity we have no way of contacting the Archbishop directly, ourselves.
I think Archbishop Vigano says that when Bishop Grillo saw the miracle for himself he instantly stopped the police investigation that he had previously instigated and ordered all state interference to stop, including lab testing. It’s all a bit unclear to exactly what happened, but it does appear that the father himself did not refuse to give a DNA sample. I think we just have to be aware also of the influence of Cardinal Bertone and other Marian deniers in this business – they’re masters at putting out misinformation to discredit people. Just look at Bertone’s actions in relation to Fr. Gruner (RIP).
I wouldn’t be so quick to use the term “miracle” in this situation. Something else strikes me about this matter, the more I think about it; bishops are not usually inclined to believe such claims. It usually takes quite a long time and something indisputable, to convince them. They try to eliminate everything else, including diabolical activity, before declaring a miracle (just think of the continuing panel of medical and other experts who examine every claim to a cure in Lourdes). Yet, look at what happened here:
The statue of Mary was confiscated by the Bishop and kept in his own home, where it continued to weep blood in front of various witnesses until March 15. Bishop Grillo himself told me what happened that day. It was 8:15 in the morning. After celebrating Holy Mass*, Bishop Grillo acceded to his sister’s request to pray before the sacred image, which he had been keeping in a closet. With the people who were present that day, Bishop Grillo began reciting the “Hail, Holy Queen.” When they said the line, “Turn then most gracious advocate, thine eyes of Mercy toward us,” the statue began to weep blood. The shock was so great that the Bishop had to receive first aid from a cardiologist.
After this disturbing event, Bishop Grillo radically changed his attitude. He stopped the DNA investigation, established a Theological Commission…”
* Presumably the novus ordo.
No question about it, apparently. A miracle. No chance of diabolical activity.
The more I compare this scenario with approved and longstanding devotions, the less it rings true.
As for Bertone – he is viciously opposed to all things related to Fatima, so that is no surprise. I am not paying any attention to his views on the matter but to what the Archbishop is reporting – sadly uncritically – in the Lifesitenews interview.
Finally, WF’s observations about the Bishop acting on emotion and not logic are spot on. He should obviously have continued with a thorough investigation to eliminate all doubt. That he did not do so, raises, well… doubts – and doubts galore, if you ask me, which, of course, you are not doing 😀
There’s been so much info here I might have forgotten, but you wrote “I think we just have to be aware also of the influence of Cardinal Bertone and other Marian deniers in this business” Has Cdl Bertone been involved at any stage? I don’t recall seeing his name. Obviously I know his habitual antics with Fatima only too well.
Yes, Archbishop Vigano, during his interview, spoke of the sinister influence of Cardinal Bertone in this matter. And you’re right, he is infamous for trying to silence the Message and Secret of Fatima.
Here’s the appropriate section from that lengthy LSN interview with Archbishop Vigano:
LifeSite: Since you mention the role of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone in your recent interview, could you tell us what he tried to do when Bishop Grillo, though he was not obliged to do so, asked the Vatican to undertake its own investigation of the apparitions in Civitavecchia?
“We mentioned earlier that Bishop Grillo himself asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to continue the study of the event. The Commission was presided over by Cardinal Ruini as supervisor, but delegated to the oversight of Msgr. Domenico Pecile, Bishop of Latina. It did not publish any findings, as has been said.
On February 17, 2005, Cardinal Bertone, who had been Archbishop of Genoa since 2002, intervened on the national RAI television network to declare that the Vatican Commission had expressed a judgment of non constat [that the apparitions were doubtful/not credible]. The following day the diocesan bishop, Bishop Grillo, publicly declared that he had never received notice of such a pronouncement by the Commission. There was never any follow up with a written document that confirmed Bertone’s statement. Moreover, Grillo later confided that he had previously heard of a propensity of the Commission for a suspensive opinion, but that Cardinal Ruini, who had communicated this to him, later asked him for silence on the matter after he learned of John Paul II’s relationship with the affair. Bishop Pecile was able to confirm to the Vice President of the Diocesan Commission, Father Flavio Ubodi, the positive attitude of the Vatican Commission regarding the event…”
I am very surprised to hear Vigano speak about this particular apparition of Our Lady.
Recalling the words Our Lady spoke in Civitavecchia even during the reign of the great St John Paul II, “In Rome darkness is descending more and more on the Rock that my Son Jesus left you on which to build up, educate and spiritually raise his children”, then we see how prophetic those words were. The darkness is caused by those who threaten schism, who would like to reduce the authority of the Pope, and who set themselves up as judges of his magisterium. Civitavecchia helps to remind the Church that Mary always teaches obedience to the Pope, and thus encourage a new humility to accept his teachings in the light of Tradition that remains alive and fruitful today.
LOL! The only person trying to reduce the authority of the pope is Pope Francis! He says he doesn’t want to be the Vicar of Christ.
Maybe you don’t remember but right at the start of his pontificate, Pope Francis has emphasized his identity as “the bishop of Rome.” The 2020 Vatican yearbook, has made the same emphasis by listing other descriptions of the papal office as “historic titles”. Like the 2019 edition, there is a page that says simply, “Francis, bishop of Rome.”
He’s made it very clear that he’s no time for the papal office, so you need to sort him out pronto, LOL!
The first clarification I need to make regarding your comment is that this “great John Paul II” you speak of, while certainly not as destructive as the present Pontiff, nevertheless gathered together all the false religions of the world at Assisi, during which a pagan group sacrificed chickens on a Catholic altar and the buddhists worshiped their false deity, which was placed atop a tabernacle! This scandal of John Paul II was directly contradictory of the First Commandment, the infallible dogma ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ and the established magisterial teaching of his Petrine predecessors. It was one of many scandals of his Pontificate, but I think the Assisi one is the clincher.
Now it seems that when Fr. Bergoglio’s name was submitted to JPII for elevation to the Episcopate, the said Fr. Bergoglio’s Jesuit Superior at the time (whose name I cannot immediately recall) wrote to Rome declaring that Bergoglio was a “sociopath” who was unfit to be raised. JPII, for whatever reason, did not pay the least attention and we see where his folly has led the Church today.
If you are an informed Catholic then you’ll know that there’s a passage in the Acts of the Apostles which describes how St. Paul (the Pope’s inferior) “resisted Peter to his face because he was to be blamed”. St. Peter at that time had given scandal by pandering to the Jews and St. Paul had it out with him in public. St. Peter of course acknowledged the correction of St. Paul with humility and repented of his scandal. What this demonstrated is that when it comes to obedience we are obliged to obey God rather than men. Hence, when any Pope speaks or acts contrary to Catholic teaching, thereby endangering the faith of souls, our Catholic duty is to resist his error, not pander to it by false obedience. We Catholics are the free children of God, not slaves to the abusive will of individual Popes. We are only obliged to obey the Pope when he obeys God and is faithful to the deposit of faith handed down. Any other kind of obedience is to make the person of the Pope a divinity, which he most certainly is not.
As for your words …The darkness is caused by those who threaten schism…. You will doubtless be aware that many,many bishops and priests have been in schism with Rome for years, though it has not been officially declared. Indeed the bishops of Germany are in de facto schism in the matter of priestly celibacy, Communion for the immoral, “gay marriage”, etc., and they’re just one example. You seem to suggest, though, that it’s the bishops and priests faithful to Tradition who are in schism with a Pope who is very publicly destroying the Catholic Faith and Catholic moral teaching. This suggests to me that you are not a Catholic of good intent, but rather a person seeking to make mischief. I sure hope I’m wrong but I’ve been debating with your type for around 40 years now and I think I can trust my instincts.
Thank you for that – I was amazed to read this from you:
“Now it seems that when Fr. Bergoglio’s name was submitted to JPII for elevation to the Episcopate, the said Fr. Bergoglio’s Jesuit Superior at the time (whose name I cannot immediately recall) wrote to Rome declaring that Bergoglio was a “sociopath” who was unfit to be raised.”
That’s amazing, but I’m none too surprised.
I think Athanasius, Michaela and Lily have, between them, said it all. I’ll just throw in my tuppence-worth because I’m like that…
You’ve perhaps never heard the term “papolatry” – it’s kinda like “idolatry” as in when you worship a pope, giving him more authority than Our Lord gave him, and treating him like a divine being, instead of a human being with a God-given but very limited authoritative role in the leadership of Christ’s Church. Here’s why it’s a mistake so to do…
“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See – they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations.” (Melchior Cano, theologian of the Council of Trent).
As we approach the midnight hour I can only think of one thing more to say…
Sweet dreams 😀
Great post Athanasius and although we might not totally agree about Civitavecchia (i.e. you keep an open mind, I’m inclined to think it’s not of God) I agree with all you say in this post, including that Christopher is probably a troll. Now about your Galaxy problem. Stop eating milk chocolate, it’s filthy stuff. Mostly vegetable fat, sugar and whey products. Hardly any chocolate. Me, I’m a true (dark) chocolate addict – won’t touch anything less than 85% cocoa solids and you only need 2 squares a day to get that theobromine hit (the chemical in chocolate which gives it the feel-good factor) in a big way. Tesco sell their own brand for £1 a bar. Hardly a fortune and lasts a few days, and far less calories for those watching their weight. Research is being done on dark chocolate / theobromine and its potential health benefits. Now, repent of your Galaxy sins and come over to the dark side . . . (not THE dark side!)
8 Potential Health Benefits of the Theobromine Found in Chocolate
Healthy Heart. Research suggests theobromine may help protect the heart in several ways. …
Increased Energy. …
Improved Cognitive Function (at least temporarily) …
Healthy Teeth. …
Good Mood. …
Cough Suppressant. …
Healthy Respiratory System. …
I know that dark chocolate is far better for health than milk chocolate but I never liked the taste of the dark stuff, which is why I’m a milk sop! The other problem is that 2 squares a day would never do for me. I eat on average half a bar of Dairy Milk per day – and I’m talking here about those massive bars that cost around £3.50. I had no idea that they were junk food disguised as chocolate, which probably explains why they irritate my IBS, but at least I don’t have a weight problem to watch at just 9 1/2 stone. I am one of those fortunate people who has kept the same body weight throughout life, even in middle age, so I never have to consider the weight issue when I want to stuff my gob with some delicious grub, including endless cakes, chololate, crisps, sausages, bacon, eggs, etc., etc. I will, however, dabble in the dark side henceforth, at least a couple of squares here and there just for the health aspects you outline. Tesco here I come!
I forgot to say that since Civitavecchia is not binding on Catholics we are free to hold our own differing opinions in the matter.
Comments are closed.