[bluecross]

In December 2017, the Pope’s envoy to Medjugorje, Monsignor Henryk Hoser gave an interview to the Italian news outlet Il Giornale.

It centered around an earlier announcement by the the archbishop emeritus of Warsaw-Praague that pilgrimages to Medjugorje organised at diocesan level are now permitted.

In the interview he clarified his earlier statement:

“It is true what I said, although perhaps it was a bit exaggerated in tone [when reported], but it is absolutely authentic that pilgrimages of prayer can be organised in Medjugorje without any problem, provided they are spiritual and do not concern the apparitions of Our Lady to the seers”.

Responding to another question later in the interview Hoser used the phrase “Because the problem of the visionaries is not yet solved.”

What could this problem be, I wonder?

Was Hoser suggesting that the visionaries themselves were the problem or, instead, that the visionaries have a problem which needs resolving?

It may be that the visionaries do not have a problem, and that the problem belongs to the Vatican in how to resolve the Medjugorje issue, especially the claims of ongoing apparitions and messages.

It seems clear that for Pope Francis, these claims present him with a problem at a personal level. He has said so. So it’s unlikely he will pronounce the claims of continuing apparitions as legit.

So this scenario perhaps presents the Pope with a further problem. Should he take on board the findings and judgement of the Commission which expressed doubt about the claims of continuing apparitions, to confirm and support his own doubts and pronounce on this? If he does, will it place him and the Church in opposition to some or all of the seers’ claims that Our Lady continues to appear to them?

And if, as anticipated, the apparitions of the first seven days are deemed supernatural, will this not further confuse the faithful, particularly if the visionaries continue to declare they receive apparitions?

For myself, I can’t see a solution to the ‘problem of the visionaries’ simply because I don’t know what the ‘problem’ is. But the fact that the restriction on pilgrimages organised at diocesan level has been lifted (with a proviso), tells me that Pope Francis does not have a problem with Medjugorje as a recognised place of pilgrimage and spiritual benefit. As Hoser remarked at the end of his interview, he found in Medjugorje “a correct cult, Christocentric” and “did not find strange or unknown aspects from the Church.”

[Prodigals]

Hoser used the phrase “Because the problem of the visionaries is not yet solved.”

It is a false assumption that the Church has power to "resolve" a bona fide apparition. The Vatican has no power to "resolve" Medjugurje, or any other bona fide apparition for that matter.

Consider:

A long time ago a visionary by the name of Juan Diego was telling a wild story in a town in Mexico. The Church in the person of Bishop Juan de Zumárraga tried to "resolve" it by saying the man was a fraud. Despite the power the Church imagined they had, Our Lady of Guadalupe showed the Church had no power in the matter, and She eventually "resolved" the matter.

A young visionary named Bernadette was telling a wild story in a garbage dump in the south of France. As the local French authorities heaped scorn upon her and wanted to put her in a mental institution, the Church "resolved" the wild story she was telling by putting as much distance as possible between themselves and the 14 year old thereby adding to the impression that the girl was crazy. Despite the Church's bad handling of the event, Our Lady of Lourdes showed the Church to be wrong and She eventually "resolved" the matter.

And now we have a guy named Hoser and his pope who don't know what to do with "the problem of the visionaries" . . . . Sound familiar?

Oh that both of these men live long enough to see Our Lady triumph.

[bluecross]

It is a false assumption that the Church has power to "resolve" a bona fide apparition. The Vatican has no power to "resolve" Medjugurje, or any other bona fide apparition for that matter.

Except that Hoser spoke about “the problem of the visionaries” as not yet solved.

He didn’t say the “problem of the apparitions” is not yet solved.

Juan Diego - one seer

Lourdes – one seer

Medjugorje – six seers

Kiebo – seven seers (three approved, four not approved)

[gtc]

The other issue that is different is that these apparitions have gone on for a long period of time and continue to this day. I don't believe the Church has had this type of situation before, and it puts them in an uncomfortable position of having to address something in the present and the past instead of just in the past.

[Prodigals]

Except that Hoser spoke about “the problem of the visionaries” as not yet solved.
He didn’t say the “problem of the apparitions” is not yet solved.

They are inseparable as visionaries are a requisite indispensable component of apparitions. Visionaries are the only mechanism by which an apparition can be made known. Without a visionary, there can be no humanly known apparition.

So if you have declared that the apparition is valid (as they have done), then there can be no "problem" with its visionary. There cannot be a problem with one and not the other. If you insist on holding this position, it is sophistry.

[bluecross]

So if you have declared that the apparition is valid (as they have done), then there can be no "problem" with its visionary. There cannot be a problem with one and not the other. If you insist on holding this position, it is sophistry.

The false argument is not on my part, neither am I deceiving myself or intending to deceive others.

The Church has yet to declare the Medjugorje apparitions are valid.

The Commission, according to Pope Francis, has its doubts about the claims of ongoing apparitions.

Of course there can be a “problem” with one visionary or more, even if the first set (7?) of apparitions are approved. You are basing your argument on the premise that all the visionaries are truthful in their claims. One may not be; even five. But that would not deny the truth that Our Lady appeared in apparition to one or more.

Ask yourself why only three of the seven Kiebho visionaries were approved – and why Henry Hoser was sent to Medjugorje for pastoral reasons, a priest who also served on the medical commission evaluating the Kibeho apparitions.

Consider this statement given by Mons Hoser at his press conference in Medjugorje on April 5, 2017.

I would like to mention the apparitions in Kibeho. I lived in Rwanda for 21 years and I participated in the work of Commission of doctors for the apparitions that happened a year after Medjugorje. The Blessed Virgin Mary had already showed the spectrum of the genocide that took place 12 years afterwards. That was one warning. The message is similar to the message here in Medjugorje, it is invitation to conversion, to peace, and those apparitions were recognised by the Church. Those places are like sister towns, I would say, according to the historical context and nearness of the period when they took place. There were many doubts whether the visionaries were genuine or not, whether they were saying fairy tales or not, and so on. Some of them were, actually, rejected. Therefore, I would like to invite you to have patience, because as the issue is more complex, it takes more time to come to valid conclusions.

Let me repeat Mons Hoser: “It takes more time to come to VALID conclusions.”

Notice also that his concluding statement came after the words: “There were many doubts whether the visionaries were genuine or not, whether they were saying fairy tales or not, and so on. Some of them were, actually, rejected.”