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.
A real criterion must be:
-
theologically grounded (Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium)
-
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.”