The concerns you listed — “red flags,” “worldly,” “sounds human” — don’t correspond to the Church’s discernment criteria. The Church evaluates alleged private revelation using theological consistency, historical coherence, spiritual fruits, and the moral character of the visionary. None of those criteria map onto the subjective impressions you listed. That’s why I laid out your own statements in the criteria chart: to show that the standards you’re using are personal expectations, not objective Catholic principles. Saying they “correspond” because you can find vaguely similar concerns somewhere doesn’t establish that they are actual criteria — it only restates your personal impressions in different words.
Calling Medjugorje “false prophecy,” saying God doesn’t send or authorize Mary to deliver messages, and asserting that Mary “would never” say certain things are not neutral opinions. They’re objective theological claims. Saying they are “based on Scripture” doesn’t yet explain the principle behind them — it only states the conclusion again, and it doesn’t address the rest of what I wrote in that sentence about why those claims require engagement with the criteria and the textual corrections.
My question has been about that underlying principle. If Scripture is the basis for your claim, then the principle should be easy to articulate:
You believe that the Holy Trinity chose Mary for the greatest instrumental mediation — delivering God the Word to the world, so that souls might be brought back or closer to Him. What theological principle lies behind your belief that it would be “a step too far” for Them to choose Her for a lesser instrumental mediation, such as delivering messages to the world for the same purpose?
You also haven’t addressed the Medjugorje message you cited as a “red flag,” or the fact that the text itself showed that your description of it was incorrect. And you haven’t addressed the criteria chart, which laid out your own statements to show that the criteria you’re using are subjective expectations, not objective Catholic discernment principles.
If you’d like to name the principle you’re using, and address the textual correction of the Medjugorje message, I’m ready to continue the conversation. And I’m happy to answer your new question about the parchment — I just need you to address those earlier points first so we’re not evaluating new claims on an undefined foundation.