Anyone who knows me knows that I was never a fan of Pope Francis, however, I recently listened to a podcast about The Church and Medjugorje. And in it, the hose talks about Pope Francis’ response when asked about the validity of Medjugorje.
Pope Francis had responded, as I agree with, that a Christian needs to be careful of individuals who make claims of modern-day prophesy, especially if they claim to have secret knowledge or make demands that are contrary to the Faith. For these things can lead the faithful astray.
But, the part that I loved the most was when he said, “Look, Our Lady is a Mother and she loves us all. But she is not a postman who sends messages every day.”
I do believe that a lot of good happens at the place where some believe Mary appeared in Medjugorje. There have been many conversions. I recently listened to an interview with an Australian girl who had left the Faith and was in an Atheist band in her youth. She later experience a profound conversion back to Christ at Medjugorje. She even went to Reconciliation and received the Blessed Sacrament there. And her life has never been the same. So, I do believe many lives are changed there, but I do not believe the claims that Mary appeared to a seer and told her all of these things ascribed to her.
There were a lot of political things going on in that Diocese between the Bishop and a religious Order at that time. And there were also a lot of dishonest claims that this party or that party alleged to have said that were not said. And just a lot of politicking going on around it.
And then when you look at what Mary had allegedly said to the visionary, there are a lot of red flags.
Currently the Church does not say that you cannot believe in the apparition, but has pointed out some problems with some of the alleged messages that the faithful must reject. Personally, I think that the Church does not want to deal with an uprising by many good-hearted people who buy into the claims, by definitively saying that the Church does not approve of the claims of Medjugorje. And, as I pointed out, many have come to Christ at this place, so even if untrue, it has become a holy place, in spite of false prophesies that had taken place there (in my opinion).
A Christian certainly must be discerning—but your phrase “modern‑day prophecy” assumes a kind of rupture between God’s action in the past and His action in the present that Scripture itself does not support. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and His ability to speak, illuminate, and act has not diminished with time.
The real distinction is not between ancient prophecy and modern prophecy. The distinction is between:
Public revelation, which ended with the Apostles, and
Christ’s ongoing communication with souls, which did not end.
So if by “modern‑day prophecy” you mean attempts to add to the deposit of faith, then yes—those must be rejected. But if you mean that Christ cannot enlighten, guide, or reveal details of His earthly life to His chosen instruments, then that position has no theological basis. Scripture itself presumes that God continues to act and speak in history.
In other words, God has not changed. Only the category of revelation has.
Where do I begin. If you read through them, many of them are centered on “The Message.” Mary would point us to her Son. She would not give secret knowledge and get involved in the politics of the Church.
I am in a men’s Bible Study and the founder of this group feels that God gave him the words to a Poem he wrote, which took nearly three months to complete. This poem got this gentleman through a tough time in his life recently. He had some health issues. And I do not doubt that this poem might have been a gift to him during this time in his life, but I do not believe it was public revelation. He recently tried to implement this poem, which he refers to as “The Gift” into our Bible Study, where he wanted us to reflect on one stanza each week. As a group, we discussed his request and all, but one man, pushed back on this. We gather each week in Jesus’ name to study the Bible, not to reflect on private revelation that may or may not have been received from God. That is not what this group is about. I get that this good man is closer to death and wants to leave a lasting legacy, but I’m sorry, this is his gift, not ours. And there are parts in his poem that are very beautiful and true, but it feels very cult-like to study a founder of a group’s writings called “The Gift” and I want nothing to do with it. Jesus founded the Catholic Church and He wrote nothing down, other than in the sand when the woman was caught in adultery, but we do not know what he was writing. The Bible never tells us.
There are parts in some of the messages of Medjugorje that are also quite beautiful and true, but then there are some things that sound like something that Mary would never say. Two different investigations were conducted by the Vatican on the validity of the claims of Medjugorje and in both, there were individuals who came to the conclusion that this was not a valid apparition. And a couple even thought that it could be demonic, though I would not go that far. For the simple fact that a demon would not tell you to read the Gospels, Pray more, and sin less. So, that leaves two other options: These kids (four girls and two boys) believed they were receiving revelations from Mary, to the point where they were even having visions of her, or they were making it up.
Why might someone or a group of someone’s make something up? I can think of a few reasons. They like the attention. He/she might be a compulsive liar (but, if it is a group, it is highly unlikely that they are all compulsive liars. Or to get others to accept their side in a certain conflict happening in that Diocese at that time.
I chalk this up to Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS Church’s claims. If you believe Joseph Smith’s claims is true, then you should convert to the LDS Faith. But, if he wrongly believed he was receiving these prophesies and visions, but they were in his own head, the you should not become Mormon. Or the only other option, besides demonic trickery, is that he was a conman; in which you should then also not join the LDS Church.
I’m not telling anyone they cannot buy into either Joseph Smith’s claims or the six visionaries (or seers) of Medjugorje: Vicka Ivanković (age 17), Mirjana Dragićević (age 16), Marija Pavlović (age 16), Ivan Dragićević (age 16), Ivanka Ivanković (age 15), and Jakov Čolo (age 10) when Mary allegedly first appeared to them.
When I was around 10 years old, I swear that I saw a black panther off of a path where my cousins and I were picking wild raspberries. Black panthers are not native to Ohio. So, either I did see what I saw, I imagined it (maybe I was a shadow in my peripheral and my mind filled in the gaps), I was making it up intentionally (I assure you that this is not the case), or something else that I am not considering.
You can believe whatever you want, but it does not make it therefore true because you believe it to be true.
I’m trying to understand your position accurately. You’ve said some Medjugorje messages are beautiful and true, and others “sound like something Mary would never say.” Given how little of Mary’s speech is preserved in Scripture, on what basis can you know what She would or wouldn’t say?
Could you also cite one or two specific messages you believe are problematic—both in terms of alleged secret knowledge and involvement in Church affairs?
And on what theological or historical grounds do you conclude that Mary would not give secrets or comment on Church affairs? At Fatima, La Salette, and Akita—each with ecclesial approval—She does precisely that, so I’m trying to understand how your principle fits the actual data.
You also said Mary would point us to Her Son; could you show where in the Medjugorje messages you believe She fails to do that?
It’s true that there were two major inquiries, but neither concluded that Medjugorje was a false apparition. The Yugoslav bishops issued a non constat judgment — the same provisional stance originally taken with Fatima and Lourdes — and the later Ruini Commission actually judged the first seven apparitions to be credible. As with any investigation, individual members expressed differing opinions, but no official body concluded “false” or “demonic.” So the idea that the Church reduced the options to “hallucination or fabrication” doesn’t reflect the actual findings.
That cuts both ways: your believing it to be false doesn’t make it false. That’s why I’m asking for specific messages or evidence.
On what theological or historical grounds do you conclude that Jesus wrote nothing other than what He wrote in the dust?
The Gospels simply do not record additional instances; they do not claim that none existed. A universal negative cannot be established from silence.
While the Evangelists do not specify what Jesus wrote in the dust, Christ has, at times, made details of His earthly life known through His chosen instruments, who had been granted visions of Gospel events.
One such account is found in the writings of Maria Valtorta, to whom Jesus showed the scene of the adulterous woman. In that vision, He is seen writing the sins of the accusers in the dust as they speak, and later words directed toward the Pharisees. Below are excerpts from The Poem of the Man-God, ch. 492 titled The Pharisees and the Adulterous Woman:
Jesus, Who had stopped speaking at the tumultuous arrival of the Pharisees and had looked at the pack of angry men with piercing eyes and then had lowered them on the depressed woman thrown at His feet, is silent. Still sitting, He has bent, and with His finger He begins to write on the stones of the porch covered with the dust raised by the wind. While they speak He writes.
« Master? We are speaking to You. Listen to us. Reply to us. Have You not understood? This woman has been caught in the very act of committing adultery. In her house. In the bed of her husband. She has polluted it with her lechery. »
Jesus is writing.
Jesus is writing. He writes and cancels with His sandal‑shod foot what He has written and writes further on, turning round slowly to find more room. He looks like a little boy playing. But what He writes are not playful words. He has written successively: « Usurer », « False », « Irreverent son », « Fornicator », « Murderer », « Desecrator of the Law », « Thief », « Libidinous », « Usurper », « Unworthy husband and father », « Blasphemer », « Rebellious to God », « Adulterer ». The words are written over and over again while fresh accusers speak.
Jesus has resumed writing, while the flight of the accusers is taking place, and He now writes: « Pharisees », « Vipers », « Sepulchres of rottenness », « Liars », « Traitors », « Enemies of God », « Revilers of His Word »…
This is not offered as a replacement for Scripture, but as a Christ‑given illumination of a moment the Evangelists chose not to detail.
The absence of a detail in the Gospel text does not mean Christ never revealed it; it only means the Evangelists did not record it.
You’re actually not alone — a surprising number of people across North America report seeing what look like black panthers, even in regions where no such species is supposed to exist.
Okay, maybe I am assuming too much here. What I mean is, the parts that speak about the importance of Prayer, Conversion, Peace, Fasting, The Holy Euchar, Scripture, etc. are edifying in nature.
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Fait under Pope Francis released a statement on September 19, 2024 flagging issues where the messages appear to mix human elements to the messages and at times goes too far.
Messages where Mary allegedly gives specific orders on dates, places, schedules, fasting days. Where she is supposedly communing Parish activities. There is a concern that the seers/visionaries may be trying to go around or replace normal Pastoral structures in the Church.
Would Mary give instructions on planning the celebration of her own Birthday? I am no fan of Cardinal Fernandez, but I agree with him on this. Mary would not do this. She would point us to her Son Jesus, our Lord. She would not be planning her own Birthday celebration.
The argument is that we celebrated Mary’s Birth traditionally on September 8th, but Mary wanted us to celebrate on her “actual” Birthday on August 5th. How can anyone confirm that this was actually Mary’s Birthday? We cannot. There are no historical records or Biblical clues about the exact day Mary was born. The reason why Catholics and some Eastern Orthodox celebrate Mary’s Birth on September 8th is because it falls 9 months after we celebrate her Immaculate Conception (December 8th).
Would Mary get annoyed if someone doesn’t follow her instructions? And would she threaten to not return if certain conditions were not met? I don’t think so.
And I already pointed out the part where Mary allegedly keeps saying, “listen to/live my messages” and “spread my messages” (again focusing on her Apparition and not on her Son). I gave you the example of the found of the Men’s Bible Study I attend and how he kept wanting us to focus on “The Gift” (a poem that he believed was revealed to Him by God). The Poem itself points to Jesus, as do some of the messages of Medjugorje, but it should not be about “The Messages” nor “The Gift” if that makes sense?
The problem is when faithful men and women put these “secrets” or “messages” on par with Sacred Scripture and revere them as Gospel truth. That is very dangerous. The LDS view “The Book of Mormon” as Scripture. Do you? Why/Why not?
Also, there are theological claims that are med by the visionaries of Medjugorje that are problematic. And the Dicastery tries to save the visionaries claims by re-defining what was meant. This reminds me very much of Justice Kennedy re-defining Obamacare as “a tax” to make it fit within the allowances of the Constitution. So when “Mary” talks about “my plan” or “my projects” for salvation, the Dicastery says, Mary actually meant that her plan is fully embracing God’s plan of Salvation and not this “Mary’s” plan for salvation that is different from God’s plan. But, is that what the this “Mary” actually meant by “my plan” and “my project” or was something else meant? Do you see why this is getting complicated and politicized?
The term “mediatrix” has also led to some problematic theological misunderstandings. Mary played a part in reconciling us to God. And when Jesus speaks of being the one “mediator” between us and God, He was speaking in the sense of redemption (1 Timothy 2:5-6), not about Prayer to (as some Protestants wrongly interpret). But, what did this “Mary” mean by mediatrix? Was it as the Church describes, that Mary played a part, as Eve played a part in Adam’s sin by her disobedience, she played a part in bringing Redemption (Jesus) into the world by her obedience to God; or does this Mary mean more of a Protestant understanding? So, now we have the Church trying to make Medjugorje fit into the Deposit of Faith.
What Justice Kennedy should have said was that the “Affordable” Care Act, as it was, is unconstitutional, not redefine it to make fit. The Vatican is kind of doing something similar here. It won’t determine that it is not Constitutional (or in this case, a valid Apparition), but they will allow it, because if you re-define certain terms, it makes it not, not invalid, and therefore permissible.
Do you know what Gnosticism was/is? It is an early heresy that believed in secret knowledge and mystical insights. The Early Church Councils warned against this and I too caution Christians in going down this path of believing in secret knowledge, promises, and modern, mystical claims as reliable truth.
Correct. And think about why that might be. I am only speculating, but Medjugorje has become quite popular and many great conversions have happened as a result going to that place (as I already pointed out). By one hundred percent putting a smackdown on this Apparition could cause many to fall away from the Faith. Because they truly have made an idol of Medjugorje. I am not saying that everyone who believe in this Apparition has made an idol of Mary, but for some, the Apparition itself has become an idol of sorts.
That is not my claim. My claim is that there is no other place in Sacred Scripture depicting Jesus writing anything (other than this story that is in the fourth century manuscripts of The Gospel of John, but not in the early century manuscripts). Jesus probably signed His name when used His debit card as a Credit card ; )
But, Jesus did not write the Bible (pen-to-paper as we might say today).
I may agree with you here, but I would need to know what you are referring to by “Christ has granted visions of Gospel events.”
The writings of Maria Valtorta also have not been approved by the Apostolic Church! Again, I ask, do you believe the visions of Joseph Smith? Why or why not? He too has not been approved by The Magisterium.
This is one speculation among others. And maybe this was what Jesus was writing in the dirt. It definitely enhances the account. But, it does not prove that Maria Valtorta’s claims are supernatural in nature.
I agree. And it also does not mean that Christ did reveal it either.
I agree! I believe Jesus does speak to souls today, and where you and I may disagree is that I believe He speaks to us to help us grow in faith, hope, and love. It is not to reveal secrets and special promises if we do certain things. That is superstition.
What is the saying, “If you are open to anything, you will fall for anything”?
You quoted only the part where I distinguished public revelation from Christ’s ongoing communication with souls, and you said you agree — but you didn’t address the rest of what I wrote. I never claimed that private revelation adds doctrine or imposes “special promises.” My point was that Scripture itself shows God continuing to act and speak in history, and the Church recognizes that He sometimes reveals concrete details (not new doctrine) to chosen souls. Saying that Christ speaks today only in vague, interior inspirations but never in concrete ways is itself a theological claim — and one that neither Scripture nor Tradition supports.
Openness and gullibility are not the same thing. The Church does not teach closed‑mindedness as a virtue. She teaches discernment — the ability to evaluate claims by their content, fruits, coherence with Revelation, and ecclesial judgment. Being open to the possibility of authentic private revelation is not “falling for anything”; it is simply accepting the Church’s own teaching that private revelation can occur and has occurred throughout history.
And the principle cuts both ways: being closed to everything is no more reliable than being open to everything. A blanket refusal to consider any alleged apparition is just as uncritical as a blanket acceptance. That’s why I keep asking for specific texts — discernment requires evidence, not slogans.
Thanks — but that doesn’t actually answer my question. You’ve described which messages you personally find edifying, but that’s different from explaining how you know what Mary would or wouldn’t say.
What is your actual criterion for determining that a message is “not something Mary would ever say”? What principle are you using?
Thanks — but none of this cites an actual Medjugorje message. I’m asking for one or two specific messages you believe contain secret knowledge or improper involvement in Church affairs.
Could you provide the exact text or at least the date of the messages you have in mind? Without specific citations, it’s impossible to evaluate your claim.
Thanks — but that doesn’t answer my question. Gnosticism is a heresy about salvation through esoteric knowledge, not a category that includes Marian secrets or prophetic warnings.
I’m asking specifically: What theological or historical principle leads you to conclude that Mary would never give secrets or comment on Church affairs — especially when approved apparitions like Fatima, La Salette, and Akita include exactly those elements?
Could you identify the principle you’re relying on?
You said you “already pointed out” an example where Mary allegedly focuses on Her messages rather than Her Son. But earlier you only gave a general impression (“many messages are centered on the message”); this is the first time you’ve cited a specific case. So let’s examine this example directly.
Mary saying “listen to My messages” or “spread My messages” does not prove self‑focus. In every approved apparition — Fatima, Lourdes, La Salette — She refers to Her messages and asks that they be spread. That is simply how private revelation works: the messenger points to the message. The question is whether the content of the message directs souls to Christ. And in Medjugorje, the messages repeatedly call for conversion, prayer, fasting, confession, and Eucharist — all of which are Christ‑centered.
Your Bible‑study anecdote doesn’t function as evidence about Medjugorje. I’m asking for specific Medjugorje messages that fail to point to Christ. Without actual citations, an analogy to a man promoting his own poem doesn’t address the question. And the analogy doesn’t establish a principle that distinguishes Medjugorje from approved apparitions. Fatima, Lourdes, and La Salette also include Mary asking people to “listen to my message” and “spread my message.” If that phrasing proves self‑focus, then the same objection would apply to those approved apparitions as well.
As for the concern that some people treat “secrets” or “messages” as if they were Scripture: misuse by individuals does not determine whether a private revelation is authentic. People have treated the Rosary, the Scapular, and even Fatima in exaggerated ways, but that excess says something about the devotee, not about the apparition itself.
So if you believe this example shows Mary failing to point to Her Son, could you cite the exact text of the message and explain how its content fails to direct people to Christ? Without that, the claim reduces to an assertion.
You quoted only the first sentence of what I wrote (“It’s true that there were two major inquiries, but neither concluded that Medjugorje was a false apparition.”), but the rest of the paragraph is the part that actually addresses your claim. The Yugoslav bishops’ non constat judgment, the Ruini Commission’s positive vote on the first seven apparitions, and the absence of any negative conclusion all directly contradict the idea that the Church reduced the options to hallucination or fabrication.
Could you respond to the full argument rather than just the opening sentence?
First, you quoted only the first half of what I wrote (“On what theological or historical grounds do you conclude that Jesus wrote nothing other than what He wrote in the dust?”), but the second half is the part that actually addresses your claim. Earlier you said Jesus “wrote nothing down other than in the sand.” That is a universal negative. Your newer statement — that Scripture records only one instance — is different from your original historical claim.
You’ve now agreed that the absence of a detail in Scripture does not prove it never happened:
I agree. And it also does not mean that Christ did reveal it either.
You added that this silence also does not prove that Christ did reveal that specific detail — and I agree. I do personally believe Christ revealed that scene to Valtorta, but my argument here does not depend on you accepting that. The point is simply that such accounts exist, which means you cannot claim with certainty that Christ did not reveal anything beyond what the Evangelists recorded.
Given your concession, could you explain how you justify the earlier universal claim?
And just to note: when you said, “You can believe whatever you want, but that does not make it true,” I responded with the corresponding epistemic point — that your believing something to be false does not make it false. You did not address that symmetry. The principle cuts both ways, which is why I keep returning to evidence and to the logical structure of your universal claim.
Second, when I said that “Christ has, at times, made details of His earthly life known through His chosen instruments, who had been granted visions of Gospel events,” I was referring to the many well‑known private revelations in which Christ showed chosen souls scenes from His earthly life — for example St. Bridget of Sweden, St. Catherine Emmerich, St. Gertrude, St. Margaret Mary, and others.
My point wasn’t about any one mystic in particular, but about the general fact that Christ has, at times, revealed details not recorded in Scripture.
That is why a universal negative (“Jesus wrote nothing else”) cannot be established from silence.
Third, I wasn’t claiming that Maria Valtorta’s writings are approved or canonical. I mentioned her only as one example of a mystic who reported a vision of a Gospel event — to illustrate the broader principle that Christ has, at times, revealed unrecorded details of His earthly life.
And regarding your claim that “the Church has not approved Valtorta’s writings”: that conclusion does not follow from the actual wording of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Church has never declared Valtorta’s writings “not supernatural” or “not divinely inspired.” If the DDF had intended such a judgment, it would have used the explicit canonical formula constat de non supernaturalitate — the Church’s only juridically recognized wording for declaring a phenomenon not of supernatural origin. That formula appears in recent DDF rulings on other alleged apparitions, which shows the Dicastery knows exactly how and when to use it.
But in the 2025 statement on Valtorta, the DDF deliberately chose different language, which places the document in a completely different category. They did not issue a doctrinal condemnation, did not declare the writings non‑supernatural, and explicitly stated that Catholics may read them as private revelation. The 1949 Index placement no longer carries canonical force, and the Dicastery affirmed that the writings contain nothing contrary to faith or morals.
So the claim “the Church does not approve them” is simply inaccurate.
And beyond the ecclesial status, there is also the scientific question. The writings contain hundreds of verifiable details — topographical, astronomical, meteorological, archaeological, botanical, and cultural — that were unknown in the 1940s and only confirmed decades later. This includes the work of:
Prof. Emilio Matricciani and Dr. Liberato De Caro on mathematical, astronomical, and meteorological data
Jean Aulagnier on archaeological and geographical accuracy
David J. Webster, who documented that Valtorta named at least nine ancient towns not discovered until after her death
A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work
Reader testimonies regarding the internal coherence and historical realism of the narratives
These are not vague correspondences; they are concrete data points that would have been inaccessible to an uneducated, bedridden woman in 1940s Italy. Whether one accepts a supernatural origin or not, the presence of such scientifically verifiable material means the claim “there is no evidence” is simply not accurate.
The issue isn’t Valtorta’s approval status, but the logical principle: Scripture’s silence does not prove a universal negative.
Since you now agree that silence does not prove non‑occurrence, could you clarify the basis for your earlier statement that Jesus “wrote nothing down other than in the sand”?
Regarding your question about Joseph Smith: that comparison doesn’t hold, because Joseph Smith claimed public revelation — new doctrine binding on all Christians — which the Church teaches ended with the Apostles. Catholic private revelations, including those I referenced, do not claim to add doctrine, create new Scripture, or establish a new religion. They belong to a different category altogether. Equating a claim of new doctrine with a claim of private illumination is a category error.
So the question is not “Why don’t you believe Joseph Smith?” The question is whether you are applying the Church’s actual categories consistently. Rejecting Joseph Smith is correct because he claimed new doctrine. But rejecting every reported vision simply because it is “modern” has no theological basis.
You’ve already acknowledged that silence in Scripture does not prove non‑occurrence. But that concession directly contradicts your earlier universal claim that Jesus “wrote nothing down other than in the sand.” You have not withdrawn that claim or explained how you justify it. Until you do, the central issue remains unresolved — and it has nothing to do with Joseph Smith.
I quoted the part that I agree with. I was trying to find common ground.
I sense that you are getting very defensive about this. The question is why?
You must have skipped over the part where I said, “Okay, maybe I am assuming too much here [in regards to this Mary saying things that Mary would never say].”
It is not only myself who is concerned by some of the messages sounding like they are of a human source and not of supernatural source, but the Vatican itself, of which I happen to agree with.
My criteria is, does Mary point to herself or does she point to her Son, her Savior? If she is commenting on Church politics, then I question it as well. What better way to win an argument than to say Mary appeared to me and she sides with me?
What is keeping me from making the same claim. Hey Mathetria, Mary appeared to me last night and she said that you are wrong and that I am right about Medjugorje. She also said that if you did not listen to this message that she will not appear at 2:00 this afternoon. So, if she does not appear to me again, I will assume that you didn’t listen to her warning.
I am skeptical of those Apparitions as well.
And therefore are not private revelation, but teetering on public revelation (meant for everyone). You are getting very angry (typing in bold fonts), because I do not accept these private revelations as truth or authentic. And again, I ask the question, why are you getting so upset? Have you made an idol of these visionaries or of apparitions themselves?
I agree with most, if not all of what you have said here. But, let me ask you this. If Mary would have made a statement of public revelation, would you have not believed the apparition or would you still be arguing that Mary has some sort of authority to make such declarations?
You seem to want the public to believe the messages of these Marian private revelations, and though, not binding, I get the sense that you believe they should be binding upon the faithful. You can correct me if I’m wrong.
I will now site the specific passages of the messages that you have been hounding me about:
2 May 1982: “I have come to call the world to conversion for the last time. Later, I will no longer appear on earth.” Does this mean that there will be no future Marian Apparitions? Or does it mean something else? I know the word “later” is subjective.
2 September 1982: “Make haste to convert. When the promised sign is manifested on the hill, it will already be too late.” Wait a minute. I thought she said on May 2nd that that was her lase time she would come to call the world to conversion. Did she lie or did she not really mean it?
21 February 1985: “Today, I am calling upon you for the last time… If you do not do that, I do not wish to give you any more messages.” I mean it this time?
Do not interpret my skepticism as an attack on our Blessed Mother. And do not interpret my skepticism as an attack on you.
On October 9, 1986: “I do not desire to force you to observe the messages.”
It seems that you want to force me to believe in “The Messages.”
One last observation. 80-90% of alleged Catholic Apparitions are claimed by women and children, while only about 10% are by men. However, in the Biblical times it was nearly the exact opposite. 90% were men and only 10% were female. Just interesting. Whereas in the Protestant Evangelical world, there is fewer data on the subject, but I would suspect that it is more male than female.
I don’t know if you are aware of the scandal happening in the Bethel Mega Church recently. Where Pastors who claim to have been given the gift of prophesy are being outed as fraudsters.
They are deceiving in two main ways. The first is that they will post an event at a Church and members will RSVP that they are attending on Facebook. Then the “prophet,” will go through individual’s Facebook pages to mine for data about these individuals. Then the night of the event, they will act as though they are receiving revelations, visions, and signs that point to these individuals. They seer appears to have secret knowledge and then gives the individual a “message from God.”
The other way that these “gifted prophets” deceive is that they will speak in tongues. And then they have an interpreter (in one example, a woman with a microphone). This particular day, they knew that two men who would be in attendance were from Russia. So, the Pastor began Praying in Russian, though only he and the two men knew what language he was speaking. The woman with the microphone tried to interpret what the Pastor had just said in tongues (as she normally does), but this time the Pastor shook his head no and then repeated the message and the woman with the microphone again, interpreted it differently this time. The Pastor shakes his head no again. Then from the back of the Congregation, two men with broken English begin shouting that the Pastor had said in their native tongue. Everyone was amazed and praised God.
Before this scandal recently broke, I used to share a story that my youngest’s Godmother told me about a friend of hers who worked with her at a touristy Hotel. He was here from China and, while here, he was filming a documentary on American Christianity. He was in a charismatic Church in Texas and he heard a man Praying in tongues, only he could understand every word! After the Service, he went up to the gentleman and began speaking to him in Chinese, but the man looked confused. “I don’t speak your language.” The kid then tried to explain to the man that he had just heard every word of his Prayer in Chinese. Pretty amazing story (I thought so, until this Bethel scandal recently broke and I now see how they do it). Chances are the young man had to have informed someone from the Church that he was filming a documentary and that he was from China. And my guess is that they either got someone who knows Chinese to play the part or the man memorized a few lines in Chinese and just repeated the same few lines over and over again, like a mantra, knowing that the young filmographer could understand what he was saying.
I know that this does not prove that modern prophesies are cons, but it does add to my skepticism of them. Again, I am not trying to convince you that they are not true, but rather that I choose to error on the side of caution.
You quoted only the one sentence that didn’t contain my argument, and then responded to that alone. That’s not finding common ground — it’s avoiding the substance of what I wrote. I’m not being defensive; I’m simply pointing out that the central points remain unaddressed.
The rest of my paragraph made three claims you still haven’t engaged:
I never said private revelation adds doctrine or “special promises.”
Scripture itself shows God revealing concrete, not merely vague, inspirations.
Saying Christ speaks today only in interior impressions is a theological claim that neither Scripture nor Tradition supports.
Those are the points I’m asking you to respond to.
If you disagree with any of them, that’s fine — but then the disagreement should be about the claims themselves, not about my supposed emotional state.
So let’s stay with the substance: Which of those three points do you think is mistaken, and why?
Thanks for clarifying — but again, this still doesn’t answer the question I asked. Saying “maybe I assumed too much” doesn’t explain the principle you were using before you made that concession. And the criterion you’re now proposing (“Does Mary point to Herself or to Her Son?” and “Does She comment on Church politics?”) doesn’t actually function as a criterion, because it would rule out approved apparitions as well.
At Fatima, Mary repeatedly asked people to spread Her message.
At La Salette, She commented directly on clergy and Church affairs.
At Akita, She warned of internal Church conflict.
If your criterion excludes Medjugorje for those reasons, it excludes these approved apparitions too. That’s why I keep asking for a principle that distinguishes the two.
Your hypothetical (“Mary appeared to me last night…”) doesn’t address the issue. Anyone can invent a fake apparition — but that has nothing to do with evaluating an actual set of messages. Discernment requires examining the content, not imagining absurd scenarios.
So let me restate the question clearly:
Which specific Medjugorje messages fail to point to Christ, and how does your criterion distinguish them from Fatima, La Salette, and Akita — where Mary also refers to Her messages and comments on Church affairs?
Until we have (1) specific texts and (2) a consistent principle, the claim remains an assertion, not an argument.
Thanks for the clarification — but saying you are “skeptical of those apparitions as well” doesn’t answer the question I asked. I wasn’t asking whether you personally accept Fatima, La Salette, or Akita. I was asking for the principle you are using to determine what Mary would or wouldn’t say.
If your criterion is that Mary would never:
refer to Her messages
give secrets
comment on Church affairs
then that criterion rules out Fatima, La Salette, and Akita — all of which the Church has judged worthy of belief. Expanding your skepticism to include them doesn’t supply a principle; it just shows that the criterion you proposed is inconsistent with the Church’s own discernment.
So let me restate the question clearly:
What theological or historical principle — not personal impression — tells you that Mary would never give secrets or comment on Church affairs, when approved apparitions include exactly those elements?
Until there is a principled distinction, the claim remains an assertion rather than a criterion.
You quoted only one sentence out of the entire argument (“In every approved apparition — Fatima, Lourdes, La Salette — She refers to Her messages and asks that they be spread.”) and then shifted the discussion to my supposed emotional state. That doesn’t address the substance. Bold text is not anger — it’s emphasis. Let’s stay with the actual claims.
You responded to:
“In every approved apparition — Fatima, Lourdes, La Salette — She refers to Her messages and asks that they be spread.”
with:
“And therefore are not private revelation, but teetering on public revelation.”
That is simply incorrect. Approved apparitions remain private revelation by definition, even when the message is intended for the whole Church. The Church has never taught that a message becomes “public revelation” simply because it is meant for many people. If that were true, then:
Fatima
Lourdes
La Salette
Akita
would all be “public revelation,” which the Church explicitly denies.
So that claim doesn’t hold.
And again, none of this answers the actual question I asked:
Which specific Medjugorje messages fail to point to Christ, and what principle distinguishes them from approved apparitions where Mary also refers to Her messages and asks that they be spread?
Accusing me of being “angry” or of “making an idol” of apparitions doesn’t answer that. It shifts the discussion away from the evidence and the principle — the two things I keep asking for.
So let’s return to the substance:
What is your criterion?
Which specific messages violate it?
How does that criterion avoid excluding Fatima, Lourdes, La Salette, and Akita?
Those are the points on the table.
You quoted only the first sentence of what I wrote (“It’s true that there were two major inquiries, but neither concluded that Medjugorje was a false apparition.”), but the rest of the paragraph is the part that actually addresses your claim. The Yugoslav bishops’ non constat judgment, the Ruini Commission’s positive vote on the first seven apparitions, and the absence of any negative conclusion all directly contradict the idea that the Church reduced the options to hallucination or fabrication.
Could you respond to the full argument rather than just the opening sentence?
You responded only to the Joseph Smith paragraph and skipped the entire argument that preceded it. That paragraph was simply clarifying a category distinction; it wasn’t the main point. You also skipped the second half of that paragraph — the part where I pointed out that rejecting Joseph Smith is correct because he claimed new doctrine, but rejecting every modern apparition simply because it is “modern” has no theological basis. You also left out the opening line of that paragraph — the point that equating a claim of new doctrine with a claim of private illumination is a category error. That line was the foundation of the argument — the actual point at issue — and it wasn’t addressed. Could you respond to that part directly? And since that argument was skipped as well, let me return to the specific issues I raised — because none of them were addressed.
Here are the specific points you left unanswered:
You originally made a universal historical claim that Jesus “wrote nothing down other than in the sand.”
You later conceded that Scripture’s silence does not prove non‑occurrence.
That concession contradicts your universal claim, yet you have neither withdrawn it nor explained how you justify it.
I asked you to clarify the basis for that universal claim.
You did not respond.
I also laid out:
the Scriptural and historical fact that Christ has revealed unrecorded details of His earthly life to saints
the Church’s actual categories for evaluating private revelation
the fact that the DDF did not issue a constat de non supernaturalitate judgment on Valtorta
the scientific evidence showing historically accurate details unknown in the 1940s
the logical principle that silence cannot establish a universal negative
None of that received a response.
Instead, you shifted to a hypothetical about Mary making a statement of public revelation and to a question about whether I think private revelations should be binding. But those questions don’t address the argument I actually made.
So let me answer your question directly and then return to the unresolved point.
If an apparition claimed new public revelation, I would reject it immediately, because public revelation ended with the Apostles. That is precisely why Joseph Smith’s claim fails. Private revelation, by definition, does not add doctrine.
But that has nothing to do with the question I asked you.
So let me restate the central issue clearly:
You acknowledged that Scripture’s silence does not prove non‑occurrence. Given that concession, what is the basis for your earlier universal claim that Jesus “wrote nothing down other than in the sand”?
That is the unresolved point.
Everything else depends on whether that universal claim can be justified.
Clarify your principle
Explain the universal claim
Address the contradiction
Those are the questions still on the table.
Thanks for finally citing specific messages — but these still don’t answer the questions I’ve been asking. You originally said some things “sound like something Mary would never say,” and that this was your basis for skepticism. The passages you’ve listed aren’t examples of that. They’re warnings and conditional statements, which appear in approved apparitions as well. They don’t fail to point to Christ, they don’t show Mary focusing on Herself, and they don’t violate your own stated criterion.
All three examples you gave are conditional or mission‑specific, not absolute predictions, and none of them contradict each other when read in context. Let me walk through them briefly.
1. “I have come to call the world to conversion for the last time.” (May 2nd, 1982)
This is not a claim that Mary will never appear again anywhere.
It is a claim that this apparition is Her final global call to conversion.
Approved apparitions use similar language:
“This is the last time I will appear here.” (Fatima)
Mission‑specific “last” language at La Salette and elsewhere
“Last time” refers to that mission, not to all future apparitions everywhere. Your reading assumes an absolute meaning the text itself does not require.
2. “When the promised sign is manifested… it will already be too late.” (September 2nd, 1982)
This is a warning about the timing of conversion, not a statement about the number of apparitions.
You’re conflating:
Mary’s worldwide call to conversion, with
Her ongoing appearances to the visionaries, which continued for years.
Those are not the same thing, so there is no contradiction.
3. “Today I am calling upon you for the last time… If you do not do that, I do not wish to give you any more messages.” (February 21st, 1985)
This is explicitly conditional:
If you do not do that,
then I do not wish to give you any more messages.
That is the same conditional structure we see in:
Fatima: “If people do what I ask…”
Akita: “If men do not repent…”
La Salette: “If My people will not submit…”
Conditional warnings are normal in private revelation.
They are not contradictions.
4. “I do not desire to force you to observe the messages.” (October 9th, 1986)
This simply restates Catholic doctrine on private revelation:
It is never forced.
It is never binding in the way public revelation is.
It is proposed, not imposed.
Mary is affirming freedom, not coercion.
So concluding from this that I “want to force you to believe the messages” is the exact opposite of what the text itself says. I haven’t tried to force you to believe anything; I’ve asked for:
specific messages, and
a consistent principle for evaluating them.
That’s discernment, not coercion.
So the real issue here is not the texts themselves, but your interpretation of them:
treating conditional statements as absolute
treating mission‑specific “last” language as universal
treating warnings as contradictions
treating an affirmation of freedom as evidence of pressure
And none of this addresses the questions I keep returning to:
Which specific Medjugorje messages fail to point to Christ?
What theological or historical basis tells you Mary would never give secrets or comment on Church affairs?
Which specific messages actually sound like something Mary “would never say”?
What principle distinguishes them from approved apparitions that contain the same elements?
Yes, and I accept those were authentic revelations.
I never said He doesn’t. I simply said that I error on the side of being skeptical of those who claim to have visions or who say, “God told me…”
You and I agree that Scripture talks about discerning when it comes to these types of things (1 John 4:1).
And we agree that just because someone believes a claim to be authentic or not authentic, it does not make is so or not so.
I too get frustrated when individuals do not answer my questions. So, I try to make a point of answering others’ questions. If my answers above still do not answer your question, keep pushing back, because it is not my intention to avoid answering your question, but rather to find common ground (and apparently poorly I’m gathering : )
I have no theological principles other than Scripture warning against false prophets. I have not historical principles other than examples of many false prophets who have duped or deceived the faithful.
Mary, like Jesus is concerned about Heavenly things. Humans are concerned about politics and the things of this world. So, when individuals claim Jesus or Mary is reveling things about worldly things, my default is to assume that these claims are influenced (either intentionally or unintentionally) by human nature.
The Church does not say that a faithful Catholic Christian must believe in approved apparitions (like Fatima, La Salette, or Akita) or non-approved apparitions (like Medjugorje). Agree?
There are many things stated in these alleged apparitions that are beneficial (even if humanly inspired). My Grandpa used to tell stories and when it got to the point of the story that had a moral dilemma, he would tell it as though he chose the right path and then my Grandma would chirp in and say, “That is not what really happened!” My Grandpa would just smirk. We knew that he was trying to teach us a life lesson, even though he may have made the wrong choice in his adolescence. Was my Grandpa bad for fabricating parts of his story? I feel the same way about apparitions. I believe these individuals are making it up (in many of the cases), but are doing so for a good reason. Does this make sense?
In other cases, the individual might be suffering from delusions or visions from transcendental meditation (hallucinations). I don’t think it is by accident that Nuns and those who spend hours in Prayer experience such visions.
While visiting friends on an Island that is known for partying youth, I heard stories from countless strangers who have had visions while on LSD and other psychedelics.
The human brain is an interesting thing and something that we do not fully understand. We also know that our brains fill in gaps when information is missing. If you have ever done some of those illusion puzzles, you have experienced how there might be a dot or line missing, but our brains see something there that is not truly there. Or when multiple individuals describe what they saw at a tragic event.
There were at least three individuals who described seeing blood on Charlie Kirk’s shirt and said that he had been shot in the chest. Neither of which are true. So, either they are in on a conspiracy, didn’t see anything and are only repeating what they heard others saw and presented it as though they had seen it, or their brains did this thing where it saw something that was not truly there.
Do these experiences prove that these apparitions are therefore untrue? No. Could they explain why they might not be true? Certainly.
I would never make the claim that an apparition is not true. How could I make that claim? Which is kind of your point is it not?
And I admitted twice to you that my claim that Mary would not have said something, that that was an over-assumption on my part. And it is something that I cannot prove. The same is true, though of those who state that Mary would absolutely say something or give secret knowledge.
So, here we are, both speculating what Mary would or would not say or did or likely did not say. And yet, I am not your enemy, nor do I see you as my enemy. Am I going to Hell if I error on the side of caution? Are you going to Hell for believing all in on every approved and/or non-approved apparition? I leave that up to God, but I would hope not.
So you appeal to “the Vatican” when you think it supports your skepticism — but at the same time you’ve said you’re skeptical of approved apparitions like Fatima, La Salette, and Akita. In other words, you invoke the Church’s authority only when you believe it agrees with you, and you set it aside when it doesn’t. And in this case, the Vatican has never said the Medjugorje messages “sound human” or are likely not supernatural; that’s your interpretation, not Rome’s.
Furthermore, what you’re calling “skepticism” isn’t skepticism at all — it’s making universal claims without a principle, rejecting approved apparitions without criteria, and appealing to the Church only when you think it agrees with you. Real skepticism requires a consistent standard, and you’ve said you have none.
Yes, I agree — the Church does not require belief in any apparition or private revelation. But the fact that belief is not obligatory does not supply a criterion for judging authenticity, nor does it justify calling an apparition “untrue” or its messages “false prophecies.” And Medjugorje is not “unapproved” in the sense of being rejected; its status is non constat de supernaturalitate (“not yet established as supernatural”), notconstat de non supernaturalitate (“established as not of supernatural origin”), nor constat de supernaturalitate (it is established that the phenomenon is of supernatural origin”).
Yes, we agree — and that was precisely my point.
I clarified that because you had framed my position as though I were treating private revelation as doctrinal or as imposing “special promises.” I wasn’t.
Thanks for the clarification — but this is exactly why I asked for precision. Earlier you said that Christ speaks today only to help us grow in faith, hope, and love, and not to reveal concrete details, secrets, or specific content. That is why I responded the way I did: because that statement does place a theological limit on how Christ speaks today.
And the question isn’t whether the biblical revelations were authentic; we both agree they were. My point was that Scripture shows God revealing concrete details, not only vague interior impressions. So the real issue was this: if Scripture shows God giving concrete revelations, what theological basis leads you to conclude that He would now limit Himself only to interior impressions? That’s the part of my paragraph I was asking you to address.
You walked back the specific claims, but not the principle behind them. Because after conceding that you had “assumed too much,” you continued to apply the very same universal rule about what Mary “would never” do — just in new forms.
For example, after your concession, you wrote:
Mary would not be planning her own birthday celebration… She would point us to her Son.
some of the [Medjugorje] messages sound like they are of a human source and not of supernatural source
Mary, like Jesus, is concerned about heavenly things… so when individuals claim Jesus or Mary is revealing things about worldly things, my default is to assume these claims are influenced by human nature.
And earlier — before your concession — you had said:
Mary would never comment on Church politics.
Mary would never refer to her messages.
And this pattern actually began even earlier, when you wrote:
Many have come to Christ at this place, so even if untrue, it has become a holy place, in spite of false prophecies that had taken place there [Medjugorje] (in my opinion).
Side note: That is contradicted by your latest claim:
I would never make the claim that an apparition is not true.
If you cannot claim an apparition is untrue, then you also cannot claim its messages are “false prophecies.”
Those two statements contradict each other.
But again, you never identified which prophecies you believe were false, what principle you used to judge them, or how you distinguish them from approved apparitions that contain similar elements. That shows the same underlying assumption was already operating even before you conceded it was an over‑assumption. You were already making authenticity judgments without a theological or historical principle to ground them.
So even though you said the original claim was an over‑assumption, you continued to rely on the same underlying assumption:
that Mary would never speak about certain topics
that Mary would never give certain kinds of instructions
that Mary would never say anything that sounds “worldly”
That’s the issue: you walked back the wording, but not the principle.
If you truly withdrew the claim that “Mary would never say X,” then the next step would be to withdraw the criterion that depends on that assumption. But instead, the same universal rule keeps reappearing in different forms.
And this ties directly to your later statement:
I have no theological principles other than Scripture warning against false prophets. I have not historical principles other than examples of many false prophets who have duped or deceived the faithful.
Scripture’s warning and the existence of past deceptions are cautions, not criteria.
They don’t tell us what Mary would or wouldn’t say, and they don’t distinguish authentic messages from inauthentic ones.
So if you now say you have “no theological and no historical principles,” that actually contradicts the criterion you continue to apply. A criterion is a principle. You can’t claim to have a criterion if you also claim to have no principle. If you truly have no principle, then the criterion cannot function as one, and you have no basis for making universal claims about what Mary “would never” do or for judging apparitions on that basis. And if you do have a principle, then I’m asking you to name it and explain how it avoids excluding approved apparitions that contain the same elements.
Additionally, you say:
I try to make a point of answering others’ questions.
It’s worth noting that it was only after I asked you the concrete questions that would require an actual principle—questions like:
Which specific Medjugorje messages fail to point to Christ?
What theological or historical basis tells you Mary would never give secrets or comment on Church affairs?
Which specific messages actually sound like something Mary “would never say”?, and thus,
What principle distinguishes them from approved apparitions that contain the same elements?
And what theological basis leads you to claim that Christ speaks today only in interior impressions and never in concrete ways, when Scripture itself shows otherwise?
—that you then said you have “no theological and no historical principles.”
That sequence matters.
Because these are precisely the kinds of questions that cannot be answered without a principle. And when pressed to answer them, you responded by saying you have none.
Which means:
you cannot identify a message that fails your criterion
you cannot explain why Mary “would never” say certain things
you cannot distinguish Medjugorje from approved apparitions
you cannot justify your universal claims about Mary or Jesus
In other words: the moment the conversation required an actual principle, you acknowledged you don’t have one.
And that’s exactly why the criterion you keep appealing to cannot function as a criterion at all.
But perhaps you can at least finally answer these:
You quoted only the first sentence of what I wrote (“It’s true that there were two major inquiries, but neither concluded that Medjugorje was a false apparition.”), but the rest of the paragraph is the part that actually addresses your claim. The Yugoslav bishops’ non constat judgment, the Ruini Commission’s positive vote on the first seven apparitions, and the absence of any negative conclusion all directly contradict the idea that the Church reduced the options to hallucination or fabrication. Could you respond to the full argument rather than just the opening sentence?
You acknowledged that Scripture’s silence does not prove non‑occurrence. Given that concession, what is the basis for your earlier universal claim that Jesus “wrote nothing down other than in the sand”?
You have speculated — and more than that, you’ve made a series of universal claims: what Mary “would never” say or do, what Jesus “does not” reveal today, and even what He “never” did. I haven’t speculated about what Mary or Jesus would or wouldn’t say or do; I’ve only asked you to name the principle behind your universal assertions. And the moment the conversation required an actual principle, you said you don’t have one. Without a principle, those universal claims — about Mary’s speech, Jesus’s manner of revelation, or Their actions — cannot function as criteria at all.
So at this point, the issue isn’t speculation. It’s simply that your universal claims require a principle you’ve said you don’t have. Until that principle is named, the claims can’t function as a basis for evaluating any apparition.
Correct. We should not treat Jesus as a magic 8-ball.
There are always exceptions to the rule. How can anyone limit God?
I’m sorry that I did not answer the question to your satisfaction.
Let me ask you this: Jesus, according to Sacred Scripture, states that no one (but God The Father) knows the day or the hour of Christ’s return. If a “prophet” or “prophetess” claims Jesus, Mary, or an Angel told them when this event will occur, would you believe them? And should I believe them? And if I do not believe them, do you believe that I am “limiting God”?
My follow-up question is, which prophets or prophetesses do you believe? All of them? Just the ones who say things that tickle your ear? Any that involve Mary, because that implies Catholic? I am trying to understand how far you are willing to believe in one visionary over another.
Many have predicted the end of the world and claim that it has been revealed to them by God. And those dates have come and gone. Did God change His mind? Or do you not believe these men and women received authentic messages? Or are they con-artists? And what makes their visions less valid than the ones you believe in?
[qutoe]
You walked back the specific claims, but not the principle behind them. Because after conceding that you had “assumed too much,” you continued to apply the very same universal rule about what Mary “would never” do — just in new forms.
For example, after your concession, you wrote… And again, after your concession, you added… And earlier — before your concession — you had said… And this pattern actually began even earlier, when you wrote… That is contradicted by your latest claim…
[/quote]
Correct. Because I cannot definitively say for sure.
I believe Mary is more humble than any human being to ever walk the earth (besides Christ, our Lord, Himself!) If Mary points to herself and demands the faithful to celebrate her, I find this to be uncharacteristic of our Blessed Mother, but then again, she is human after all. But, if pride is a sin, and we believe Mary received the grace to overcome sin throughout her life, then I would find it problematic that Mary would be appearing to kids and committing the sin of pride. Does this make sense? Telling people they need to celebrate her Birthday on August 5th (and not work for three days leading up to the Birthday celebration. How many of us plan our own Birthday Parties? Usually someone else throws a Birthday celebration for us, not the other way around.
So, when I say that I believe Mary would never do/say something prideful, it is because I believe she is full of grace. It isn’t because, I think I know her better than you or anyone else.
In all of your finger-pointing, you forgot to recognize that I said “(in my opinion),” An opinion is not making a definitive claim.
How can anyone claim any apparition is true or untrue? It either is true or is not true, in spite of what anyone believes about it. I think we are talking past one another, because you are seeing this through a binary, when there are more than two ways of looking at this.
Alleged Apparitions are not true, because you/I believe they are true.
Authentic Apparitions are not untrue, because you/I believe they are not true.
An authentic Apparition is true because it is true.
False prophesy is not true, because it is of a human source and not truly of God, even if it contains certain truths.
Nothing is real and we are all living in a simulation (which I do not believe ; )
Something else that may be real that I am unaware of.
As you can see, it isn’t this or that. There is nuance.
And around and around we go. Correct. It is the difference between making a definitive claim and an opinion based on certain truths or claims.
I have a principle and I have a criteria that leads to an opinion or a belief that may or may not be true. It does not therefore make my opinion or belief untrue/true. Again, I think we are talking past one another.
It isn’t that I do not have theological or historical principles, it is that I do not have theological or historical principles that you would find acceptable.
When I said that I have “no theological principles other than Scripture warning against false prophets,” this is addressing why I am skeptical. And when I said that I have “no historical principles other than examples of many false prophets who have duped or deceived the faithful,” I am again addressing why I am skeptical.
Both of these statements were not addressing the Apparition claims themselves. That is the context of my statements.
So all of the things you say after this, is mute, because it does not apply to what I actually was referencing.
If anything, I did not answer your question correctly or to your satisfaction.
You say you “never said otherwise,” but you repeatedly treated Medjugorje as though “unapproved” meant “likely false” — calling messages “false prophecies,” saying they “sound human,” and even saying “even if untrue.” Those are not neutral statements, and they are not how the Church uses the term non constat.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t clarifying something ambiguous in my own position — I was correcting the way you had framed it. I’ve been consistent from the beginning that private revelation does not add doctrine or impose universal obligations.
Saying “we shouldn’t treat Jesus like a magic 8‑ball” doesn’t answer the point. I never claimed that, and the Church doesn’t teach that. The issue is your universal claim that Jesus does not reveal concrete details today — a claim that contradicts Scripture, approved apparitions, and the Church’s own norms for discernment.
Saying “there are always exceptions” directly contradicts your earlier statement that Jesus speaks today only to help us grow in faith, hope, and love and never to reveal concrete details. If there are exceptions, then your original claim was too strong — and if no one can limit God, then the universal limit you stated cannot stand. That’s why I asked for the theological basis behind it.
By apologizing for not answering “to my satisfaction,” you’re implying you already attempted to answer — but you haven’t. This is the first time you’ve tried, and your examples about false prophets still don’t address the question I asked. I’m not asking whether we should believe someone who predicts the date of the Second Coming; Scripture already answers that. I’m asking for the theological principle behind your universal claim that Jesus no longer reveals concrete details at all. That claim contradicts Scripture, contradicts approved apparitions, and contradicts the Church’s own norms for discernment. So I’m asking again: what theological basis supports your assertion that Jesus now limits Himself only to interior impressions?
Your follow‑up questions about false predictions, con‑artists, or which prophets I believe don’t resolve that issue. Those are general cautions — and I agree with them. But they are not a principle for evaluating a specific message. The issue is that you’re making universal claims about what Mary “would never” do while also saying you cannot know what She would or wouldn’t say and have no theological or historical criterion for evaluating messages. That’s the contradiction I’m addressing.
Saying “I cannot definitively say for sure” doesn’t resolve the issue, because you continue to make universal claims about what Mary would or wouldn’t do based on your personal sense of what seems “uncharacteristic.” But humility does not mean silence, and approved apparitions show Mary speaking about Herself, Her identity, Her mission, and Her requests. So your argument still depends on a principle you’ve already said you don’t have.
If your position is that you cannot know what Mary would or wouldn’t say, then you cannot claim that a message is “uncharacteristic,” “prideful,” or “human.” Those are the very judgments you say you cannot make. And you’re making these judgments without even quoting or examining the actual words attributed to Mary in the message. You’re reacting to your impression of what the message “sounds like,” not to the content itself — which again shows that your argument rests on personal intuition rather than a theological principle.
Additionally, you’ve now made several claims about what Mary allegedly said regarding Her birthday — including that She “tell the faithful they needed to celebrate her birthday,” that She told people “not to work for three days,” and that She was “planning her own birthday party.” Please quote the specific Medjugorje message where Mary says these things.
Saying “in my opinion” doesn’t change the substance of what you said. You used that opinion to make universal judgments about what Mary would or wouldn’t do, what counts as prideful, and what is “human” or “false prophecy.” Those are not neutral opinions — they are discernment claims, and discernment requires a principle.
And I’m not reducing anything to a binary. I agree that an apparition is true or false independently of our belief. The issue is that you’re making universal claims about what Mary “would never” do while also saying you cannot know what She would or wouldn’t say and have no theological or historical criterion for evaluating messages. That’s the contradiction I’m addressing.
Saying “in my opinion” doesn’t change the substance of what you said. You used that opinion to make universal judgments about what Mary would or wouldn’t do, what counts as prideful, and what is “human” or “false prophecy.” Those are not neutral opinions — they are discernment claims. And discernment claims require a principle.
What you’re calling “skepticism” isn’t actually skepticism. A skeptic suspends judgment until there is a criterion for discernment. But you’re making judgments while also saying you cannot know what Mary would or wouldn’t say and have no criterion for evaluating messages. That isn’t skepticism — it’s making judgments without a principle.
And that’s why your claim that my points are “moot” because you were “only explaining why you are skeptical” doesn’t work. You weren’t merely expressing skepticism. You were making universal claims about what Mary would or wouldn’t do, and about what is prideful or human. Those are the very claims that require a principle — and the principle is what I’ve been asking you to articulate.
You’ve said repeatedly that you cannot definitively say what Mary would or wouldn’t do, that you assumed too much, and that you have no theological or historical principles beyond general cautions about false prophets. Those cautions explain why you feel cautious, but they do not function as criteria for evaluating specific messages. That’s the distinction I’ve been making.
So when you now say, “I do have principles — just not ones you would find acceptable,” that doesn’t resolve the issue. The issue isn’t whether I would “accept” them. The issue is that the only principles you’ve actually named — Scripture’s general warning against false prophets and historical examples of deception — are not discernment criteria. They are cautions. And cautions cannot justify the specific judgments you’re making about what Mary “would never” say or what is “human” or “false prophecy.”
If you now want to say that you answered the question incorrectly, that’s fine. But the question still stands: what theological or historical criterion allows you to make the judgments you’ve been making? Saying “it’s just my opinion” doesn’t answer that, because the judgments you’re making go far beyond personal preference.
If you’re committed to being truly skeptical, honest, and consistent, then the principles you’ve named — general cautions about false prophets and historical examples of deception — cannot function as criteria for evaluating specific messages. And without a criterion, you cannot make any judgments about private revelations at all, positive or negative. The only consistent position would be:
“I can’t comment on authenticity until I have a principle for discernment.”
Nope. Again, you see things only in a binary. My stance is factual. Medjugorje is not not approved. This is different than being not approved (pretty sure we agree, but you keep misunderstanding or purposely twist what I am saying).
There are three options here: It is approved (which it is not). It is deemed not approved (which it is also not). And it is not not approved (which is where it currently is). You keep twisting what I say (maybe we just don’t speak the same language).
And I would say that private revelation should not add doctrine nor impose universal obligations. So, again, I think we agree.
If there are always exceptions, would not there be exceptions to my statement. Again, I think I speak in such a way that you cannot understand. When people people misuse the word “literally” when they do not literally mean literally, but rather use the word as emphasis, that is how I sometimes use the word always. When I say that there are “always” exceptions, I am not meaning that in every (in the literal sense of the word) instance there is an exception.
Moving forward in our conversation, would it be helpful to you for me to explain what I do no mean after every sentence? Because, I can if that will help you better understand what I am and what I am not saying.
Correct.
But, I have. Again, I think we are having two different conversations. I am trying to understand why you believe so many alleged apparitions are true and figure out why you do not believe other claims are then not true. Correct me if I am wrong, you are trying to figure out why I do not believe so many alleged apparitions and figure out why I do not believe in most claims as true.
I feel like with everything I answer, you use as a trap or a “gotcha,” against me. That is not trying to understand.
And again, I think we agree more than we disagree, if you stop twisting the meaning of my responses.
No matter how I answer this question, it will not satisfy you. I’ve already told you that Jesus cannot be limited. This is what I believe. Why do I believe it? Because Jesus is God. You and I are not God. If you would like a theological reason for my belief, read the book of Genesis.
Please allow me to play your game for moment. Are you not limiting Jesus by saying (as I do) that Jesus cannot reveal new doctrines or impose universal obligations)? And if yes, then could have Jesus have appeared to Joseph Smith and reveled such things that he claimed?
Now, I will explain what I am not saying. I am not saying that I believe you should believe Joseph Smith’s claims. I am also not saying that I believe Jesus, Mary, and Angels appear to present a new public revaluation.
My entire argument is about general cautions. And if you agree, then that is another agreement that we have.
Again, I never said it was, but it is evidence that these are possibilities. We are talking past one another. And I do not think in binary.
I gave you a theological argument for why I do not believe Mary would plan her own Birthday and tell the faithful how to celebrate it (pride) and you dismiss it at absurd. My argument is that Mary would not be full of grace, nor has received the grace to remain sinless, if she does commit sin. Again, there can be exceptions to the rule, but that would be a contradiction, if you’ll lower your finger out of my face please.
When you calmly put your finger down, I will answer you ; )
From the Holy See Press Office, "Our Lady gives orders about specific dates, places, and practicalities and when she makes decisions about ordinary matters. Although messages of this type are infrequent in Medjugorje, we can find some of them that are explained solely from the personal desires of the alleged visionaries. The following is a clear example of these misleading messages: ‘This August 5th will mark the celebration of the second millennium of my birth […]. I ask you to prepare
yourselves intensively over three days […]. Do not work on these days’ (1 August 1984).
It is reasonable for the faithful, using prudence and common sense, not to take these details seriously nor heed them. One must always recall that in this spiritual experience (as in other spiritual experiences and alleged supernatural phenomena), positive and edifying elements are mixed with other elements that are to be ignored.
But this fact should not lead one to spurn the richness and the good of the Medjugorje proposal as a whole."
So point your finger at the Vatican, whom I agree with here, though they are being charitable by adding that last sentence, even though I agree. This is where you will quote something I have said that leads you to believe that I do not agree and bla-bla-bla.
If I had to summarize our conversation it goes like this:
I believe this… does not always mean that… Why do you believe this and not that?
It is hard to have a conversation with someone who does not really want to understand, but would rather lay traps.
I have asked you why you care so much that I believe in modern Apparitions. You took offense to my calling them “modern.” I asked you why you seem to believe all of the Catholic apparitions, but not non-Catholic apparitions? Is not that limiting God? I am trying to understand why you are so quick to accept supernatural claims and demanding that I do the same.
I do think Christians need to be cautious, but that is not the same thing as saying that you cannot or should not believe in modern apparitions. I’m sorry that I have to explain what I am not saying, but this is the only way to save you from twisting what I actually believe. But, I’m sure you will find something I have said above to “contradict” what I am truly saying.
I love Mary. I do believe she leads individuals to Christ, our Savior. There is a couple from our sister Church who’s young daughter was very ill. She was was born with her organs on the outside of her body, which required many surgeries. Doctors did not expect this joy-filled little girl to make it past a certain age, but she was gifted more time than they predicted.
The Husband was a man of science (taught biology at the local high school). The Wife was a Christian, but they were Church-hopping early in their Marriage. They settled on a Lutheran Church if I remember correctly.
While in the hospital, this little girl claimed that she would see a woman by her bed. One day while flipping through the channels on the TV, an image of our Bless Mother flashed on the screen and Kyra said, “Mommy, that is the lady that I see by my bed.” They went back a few channels and I assume stopped on the image of Mary.
Kyra got to go home to spend her remaining days on earth with her Family (her Dad, Mom, and brothers & sisters). On one of her final day, Kyra was staring towards an area in the living room and her Parents began asking her if she saw something or someone. Her Mom asked if she saw the woman again to comfort her. The little girl said, “No Mommy, she is here to comfort you.”
I might be telling this story slightly wrong, but if you would like to listen to their amazing story, I will private message you the link to the recording of them sharing their testimony. I recorded it with my digital recorder, so the quality is not the best.
Because of this experience that they could not explain, they became Catholic and their faith and trust in God has grown greatly through all the trials and because of our Blessed Mother maybe visiting this little girl.
So, why then do I believe this apparition over others? Because it was not about Mary. It was about leading this beautiful family to a deeper relationship with Jesus Christ, Mary, and the Communion of Saints (our spiritual family). It was not to predict the future or give secret knowledge, but rather to bring comfort and joy in the midst of pain and sorrow.
I never took offense at your use of the word “modern.” The only thing I responded to was the theological implication of the phrase “modern‑day prophecy,” because in your original sentence you used it as a category that implied a rupture between how God acted in Scripture and how He acts now. My reply addressed that theological implication, not the vocabulary.
Here is exactly what I said:
“A Christian certainly must be discerning—but your phrase ‘modern‑day prophecy’ assumes a kind of rupture between God’s action in the past and His action in the present that Scripture itself does not support.”
And in another place, I said:
…I pointed out that rejecting Joseph Smith is correct because he claimed new doctrine, but rejecting every modern apparition simply because it is “modern” has no theological basis.
Nothing in any of this expresses offense. It is a theological clarification, not an emotional reaction. So the idea that I “took offense” is something you inferred, not something I said or implied.
I never said or implied that I believe “so many” alleged apparitions are true or that I reject “so many” others. You’ve never asked me which ones I accept. I’ve mentioned exactly one that I believe (Medjugorje) and exactly one that I reject (Joseph Smith), both in direct response to your specific questions. So the premise of your statement is mistaken — it’s something you’ve introduced, not something based on anything I’ve said or implied.
I never said or implied that I believe “all” Catholic apparitions, and you’ve never asked me which ones I accept. I’ve mentioned exactly one that I believe (Medjugorje) and exactly one that I reject (Joseph Smith), both in direct response to your specific questions. So the idea that I’m “quick to accept supernatural claims” or that I’m “demanding you do the same” is something you’ve attributed to me, not something I’ve said or implied.
I’m not trying to figure out why you “don’t believe so many apparitions” or “do not believe most claims as true,” because I have never claimed you should believe them. My intention has been clear and consistent from the beginning: I’m asking for the theological or historical principle behind the universal claims you’ve made about what Mary or Jesus would or wouldn’t say or do. That’s not demanding that you believe anything; it’s asking you to explain the basis for the judgments you’ve already made.
I’m asking questions, and when your answers don’t address them or contradict other statements you’ve made, I point that out. That isn’t a trap or twisting your words — it’s simply staying focused on the issue you raised.
You’re now saying I “see things in a binary” when the binary came from your own earlier statements — not mine.
We do agree on the doctrinal point — private revelation adds no new doctrines and imposes no universal obligations. That was never the issue. The issue is that you originally framed my position as though I weren’t saying that, and I corrected that framing. Saying “thank you for the clarification” doesn’t acknowledge that the misunderstanding came from your description, not from anything ambiguous in what I said.
So yes, we agree on the doctrine. But the point I was making is that I wasn’t clarifying my own view — I was correcting the way you had presented it.
No — saying Jesus cannot reveal new doctrines or impose universal obligations is not “limiting” Him. It is accepting a theological principle the Church teaches: public revelation is complete. That is not a human limit placed on God; it is a revealed truth about how God has chosen to act in history.
Your claim is different. You said Jesus speaks today only to help people grow in faith, hope, and love and never reveals concrete details, secrets, or specific requests. That is not a doctrinal boundary taught by the Church. That is a personal assumption. And that’s the distinction I’ve been asking you to clarify.
I understand the three categories. In fact, I already explained them in the exact terms the Church uses:
non constat de supernaturalitate (“not yet established as supernatural”)
constat de supernaturalitate (it is established that the phenomenon is of supernatural origin”)
constat de non supernaturalitate (“established as not of supernatural origin”)
My point is not about the categories themselves, but about how your own statements fit with them. Calling Medjugorje messages “false prophecy,” saying they “sound human,” or saying “even if untrue” are not neutral statements. They are negative discernment judgments and don’t match the category non constat, which is neutral. Pointing out that mismatch isn’t twisting — it’s comparing your statements to the category you say you’re using.
I never called your argument absurd. What I pointed out was the internal contradiction: you said you cannot definitively know what Mary would or wouldn’t say or do, yet you made universal claims about what Mary would or wouldn’t say or do based on personal intuition. I also noted that humility does not imply silence, since approved apparitions show Mary speaking about Herself, Her identity, Her messages, and even about Church affairs. And because you made several claims about what Mary allegedly said regarding Her birthday, I asked you to quote the specific Medjugorje message. None of that is dismissive; it’s a theological and logical clarification, not an emotional reaction.
After that, you quoted the message in question:
You interpreted the message as saying:
“ …they need to celebrate her birthday on August 5th (and not work for three days leading up to the birthday celebration).”
But the message doesn’t say:
“you need to celebrate My Birthday on August 5th”
“you need to not work for three days leading up to the birthday celebration”
It says:
“This August 5th will mark the celebration of the second millennium of My Birth…”
“l ask you to prepare yourselves intensively over three days…”
“Do not work on these days.”
And that’s according to a note by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Another source — the privately run archive site medjugorje.eu — gives the message in this form:
To Jelena:
‘This message is dedicated to the Pope and to all Christians. Prepare the second millennium of My Birth which will take place August 5th, 1984. Throughout the centuries, I consecrated My entire life to you. Is it too much for You to consecrate three days for Me? Do not work, on that day, but take up the rosary and pray.’ (At the beginning of August 1984)
That version says:
“Prepare the second millennium of My Birth which will take place August 5th, 1984.”
“Throughout the centuries, I consecrated My entire life to you. Is it too much for You to consecrate three days for Me?”
“Do not work, on that day, but take up the rosary and pray.”
And a third source — the lay apostolate Mary TV — describes what actually happened on August 5, 1984:
August 5, 1984 – Message from Our Lady of Medjugorje
The celebration of the second millennium of Mary’s birthday was preceded by three days of fasting and continuous prayer. Seventy priests heard confessions without rest; there were a great number of conversions.
“Never in my life have I cried with sorrow, as I have cried this evening with joy. Thank you!”
In anticipation of this day Our Lady had said:
“The priest who will hear confession will have great joy on that day.”
During these 3 days of fasting and continuous prayer the visionaries say the Blessed Virgin was: Very Joyful. Our Lady repeated:
“I am very happy, continue, continue. Continue to pray and to fast.”
Her joy seemed to have reached a peak Sunday, August 5th. Like a flower when it blooms, and full of joy, Our Lady said:
“Continue, continue, open your hearts, ask God and I will ask for you.” (August 5, 1984)
This description of fasting, prayer, confession, conversion, and joy is entirely consistent with the two versions of the message (“Prepare yourselves intensively,” “Prepare for the second millennium of My Birth which will take place August 5th, 1984… Is it too much for you to consecrate three days for Me?… take up the rosary and pray”), and completely unlike the characterization you gave — namely, that accepting this message would imply Mary committed the sin of pride by planning Her own birthday celebration and telling people how to celebrate it.
What stood out to me about the DDF’s version is that it only partially quoted the message, as indicated by the ellipses. That raises an obvious question: is the material they omitted the same content found in the fuller version I cited? If so, then the fuller version would simply be the more complete and accurate wording of the same message.
That’s why I asked you to quote the actual text. If two versions exist — one abbreviated by the DDF for illustrative purposes, and one giving the full message — then accuracy requires looking at the complete wording before drawing conclusions about what Mary “would never” say or do. Whichever version you prefer, the message’s actual statements are not the same claims you attributed to it.
All of this is why I’ve been asking for clarity on both the principles you’re using and the specific texts you’re evaluating — without clear principles and without accurate quotations, the conclusions you’re drawing can’t be assessed on their own terms.
If the text does not say what you claimed, then the argument built on that description does not hold. That is not dismissing your argument — it is examining the evidence on its own terms. My original question remains the same: what theological or historical principle supports the universal claims you’ve made about what Mary would or wouldn’t say or do? The separate issue here is that your description of the Medjugorje message does not match the actual text, which is why I asked you to quote it. You’ve also said that when looking at the Medjugorje messages, there are “a lot of red flags” and “false prophecies," and the one example you’ve given has now been shown not to say what you claimed it did. Do you have any other specific messages that you believe fall under these negative classifications and would like to quote for examination?
First, I never equated cautiousness with saying that one cannot or should not believe in modern apparitions. That is not something I explicitly or implicitly said. Second, you’ve said repeatedly that I’m “twisting” your words, so I’m laying out your own statements in one place — statements you made either before or after your concession (“Okay, maybe I am assuming too much here”). These are your criteria, principles, and universal claims as you yourself have articulated them:
Category
Principles
Theological
None
Historical
None
Subjective Cautions (misidentified as principles)
“Scriptural warning against false prophets”; “examples of many false prophets”; “Mary like Jesus are concerned with heavenly things, not worldly things”
These are not discernment principles; they are general cautions. They warn that deception exists, but they do not tell you how to evaluate any particular apparition or message. A caution says “be careful”; a principle says “here is how to distinguish true from false.” You are using cautions as if they were principles, but they cannot bear that weight — which is why they cannot support the universal claims you’ve been making.
The same problem appears in your statement that “Mary and Jesus are concerned with heavenly things, not worldly things.” You are treating this as both a universal claim and a discernment principle, but it cannot function as either. It contradicts Scripture, Christology, Mariology, and every approved apparition. Jesus constantly addressed worldly realities; Mary and Jesus are human and speak through human language. If worldly subject matter automatically makes a message “human, not supernatural,” then every biblical prophecy and every approved apparition would fail your test. That shows the assumption is not a principle — it is simply an intuition.
Category
Criteria
Discernment
None
Subjective Questions (not criteria)
“Does Mary point to Herself or does She point to Her Son?”; “Is Mary commenting on Church Politics?”
These are personal intuitions — subjective expectations about how you think Mary would behave — not discernment criteria. They have no theological, historical, or methodological grounding, and therefore cannot function as evaluative principles.
historically grounded (consistent with approved apparitions)
objective and definable
able to distinguish true from false
usable across cases
non‑circular
Your two questions fail all of these requirements:
They do not come from Scripture, Tradition, or the Church’s norms.
They are contradicted by the very apparitions you yourself have expressed skepticism toward (Fatima, Lourdes, La Salette, Akita), where Mary does comment on Church affairs and does refer to Her messages.
They rely on undefined terms (“pointing to Herself,” “Church politics”), which cannot be applied consistently.
They cannot distinguish true from false, since Mary does both in the apparitions you reject and false apparitions can avoid both.
They collapse into circular reasoning (“Mary wouldn’t do what I think Mary wouldn’t do”).
They contradict your own concession that you “cannot definitively say what Mary would or wouldn’t say.”
Because they lack theological grounding, historical grounding, objectivity, discriminating power, and internal coherence, they cannot function as discernment criteria. They are subjective expectations, not principles.
Category
Universal Claims
Mary
“focuses on Her apparitions and not on Her Son”; would not: “give secret knowledge”; “comment on Church politics”; “refer to Her messages”; “tell the faithful they need to celebrate Her birthday on August 5th”; “be concerned with worldly things”
Jesus
“speaks only to help growth in faith, hope, and love”; would not: “reveal secrets and special promises”; “be concerned with worldly things”
Medjugorje Messages
“there are a lot of red flags”; “false prophecies”; “sounds like a human source (not supernatural)”; “not not approved”
Apparitions
“I’m skeptical of Medjugorje/Fatima/La Salette/Akita”
Taken together, these are not expressions of caution; they are universal claims about what Mary and Jesus would never say or do, and categorical judgments about entire apparitions — including approved ones — made without any theological or historical principle to justify them.
The Logical Consequence of Your Claims
First, both of your alleged criteria contradict the very apparitions you yourself have already expressed skepticism toward (Fatima, La Salette, Akita). In those cases, Mary does comment on Church affairs and does refer to Her messages — the very things you claim Mary “would never” do. Yet you continue to assume these apparitions are “influenced by human nature,” while appealing to the Church only when you believe it supports your view of Medjugorje (where Mary also comments on Church affairs and refers to Her messages). In other words, you invoke the Church’s authority only when you believe it agrees with you, and you set it aside when it doesn’t.
Second, you are not being truly cautious or skeptical:
Cautiousness suspends judgment until principles and criteria exist.
Skepticism is a conclusion drawn after applying principles and criteria.
You are doing neither. You have no valid principles, no criterion, and no criteria. You conceded that your original universal claims were too strong, but you did not abandon the principle behind them — and you continued to apply that same principle both before and after the concession. Before the concession, you labeled Medjugorje’s messages “false prophecies" and “red flags." After the concession, you continued making new universal claims about what Mary and Jesus “would never” say or do. That is not caution; it is premature skepticism without a foundation.
Therefore, if you’re committed to being truly honest, consistent, cautious, or skeptical, then the only consistent position would be to say:
“I retract my universal claims, because I can’t comment on authenticity until I have a principle for discernment.”
The “prophet” Joseph Smith claimed that Jesus, and Angel, and the apostles Peter, James, and John appeared to him with messages from God.
I know these were not approved by the Catholic Church. And I know that you draw the distinction between public vs. private revelation, which I agree with.
My question for you is this, one of the six kids of the Medjugorje Apparitions, Mirjana Dragičević-Soldo, claims she received a mystical, indestructible parchment from Mary with the 10 Secrets written on it. And only she and a future Priest of her choice will be able to read them and that when anyone else sees the parchment, they see text other than the ten secrets. Do you believe this story? That there was such parchment given to her?
The “prophet” Joseph Smith also made a similar claim, only he was given gold plates from a “messenger of the Lord” and only he, Joseph, was given the gift to decipher what the plates said.
What happens if the future events that these six kids claim do not come true before one of them passes? Have you thought about this? Because their claim is that all ten secrets will be revealed in there lifetime. And the big event that is supposed to happen where Mary appeared to them, what do you speculate this will be? And if that doesn’t happen either, then what will you do?
If I wanted to fool individuals with a magical parchment, I would create multiple parchments with multiple messages and show them to different individuals and ask them what they see and then claim that I see something other than this. I would then have one, which I will show to a future Priest with the “Ten Secrets” written on it and have him examine it. And when he sees “what I see” then “all has been revealed.”