IS CLAIRVOYANCE ALWAYS DEMONIC IN ORIGIN AND INFLUENCE?
Super-long video one-and-a-half hours so I will just highlight several points in the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPEyZh9pnQQ
—Archdiocese of Manila Office of Exorcism, “Talk 9 The Occult Third Eye-October 12, 2020 Fr Winston Cabading, OP,” YouTube video, 1:24:45 hours, October 12, 2020
Theological exposition is persuasive as far as it goes but its principal deficiency is that it deals only with demonic powers of clairvoyance. It also identifies clairvoyance with the demonically enhanced “third eye” and the demonic generally.
If we examine the definition of clairvoyance, it is neutral in the sense that it is not identified with the influence of either good or evil spirits. Clairvoyance is not by definition demonic in nature.
Furthermore, we know many, many instances and accounts in which clairvoyance in this neutral sense of the word is the result of the action of good spirits and in which, ultimately, God is the salutary cause.
The video fails to address the case in which clairvoyance is the product of the good spirits.
In addition, some who are born with above average psychic abilities use these abilities for the good and presumably in this case if we assume that their abilities are influenced or enhanced by the spirits, we would deduce that the spirits are good.
Apropos of this subject Father Stephen Rossetti says the following:
34:30 Sensitivity to the supernatural
https://www.youtube.com/live/ghM4Fd2lU8c?si=j64qZoIZIUyjsuwn
—National Review Institute, “Diary of an American Exorcist” YouTube video, 1:00:17 hours, Oct 27, 2021
Father Rossetti observes that some have received gifts of clairvoyance (neutral sense) from God and that exorcists in fact use their gifts to assist in exorcisms.
A last point:
The soul is the battleground of good and evil spirits in which the will that morally
chooses is the object of spiritual warfare. Father Cabading (Manila Archdiocese
video) does not deal with the coexistence of good and evil spirits striving to
influence the soul or how to distinguish them and respond to their
consequential influence. He deals only with the influence of the demonic. In
this respect the Manila Archdiocese video is woefully inadequate. The Ignatian
framework for discerning the spirits is more useful and helpful in this
respect.
Public domain image
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
THE CASE OF OUR LADY OF MEDJUGORJE
ReplyDeleteQuestion:
What is the Church’s official stance on the reported Marian apparitions in Medjugorje?
Answer:
In June 1981, the Blessed Mother reportedly began appearing regularly to several children in the town of Medjugorje, which is located in the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, then part of Yugoslavia. (The diocese is now part of the nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.)
In 1985, Mostar-Duvno’s bishop Pavao Zanic determined that the apparitions were not authentic, i.e., not of supernatural origin.
In 1991, the bishops’ conference of Yugoslavia ruled that the supernatural character of the reported apparitions could not be affirmed. This is different than a definitive declaration that there is no supernatural character.
Bishop Zanic maintained his position until his retirement in July 1993, when Bishop Ratko Peric succeeded him. Throughout his tenure in Mostar, which lasted until July 2020, Bishop Peric consistently reaffirmed the decision of his predecessor.
Bishop Petar Palic is the current Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, and he has not overturned his predecessors’ decisions.
The Holy See, consistent with the rulings of the local bishops, has allowed pilgrimages to Medjugorje, provided they don’t present the reported apparitions as approved by the Church, and has forbidden the faithful from participating in events where the reported seers present their reported apparitions as of supernatural origin [see below].
https://www.catholic.com/qa/the-churchs-current-position-on-medjugorje
—Tom Nash, “The Church’s Current Position on Medjugorje,” Catholic Answers
The head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Müller, asked the apostolic nuncio to the United States (i.e., the Vatican ambassador to the U.S.) to send a letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The letter, dated October 21, 2013, deals with the Medjugorje phenomenon, and he asked that the letter be sent to all U.S. bishops.
This letter appears to call for a more restrictive policy than the Holy See has insisted on thus far.
To be continued
Gonzalinho
THE CASE OF OUR LADY OF MEDJUGORJE
DeleteContinued
3) Why was the letter sent?
One of the Medjugorje seers—Ivan Dragicevic—has a residence in the United States and has been conducting a speaking ministry in which he reports receiving apparitions.
The apostolic nuncio (Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano), explains in the letter:
[O]ne of the so-called visionaries of Medjugorje, Mr. Ivan Dragicevic, is scheduled to appear at certain parishes around the country, during which time he will make presentations regarding the phenomenon of Medjugorje.
It is anticipated, moreover, that Mr. Dragicevic will be receiving “apparitions” during these scheduled appearances.
Concern about the reported apparitions during public events is what occasioned the letter.
4) What does the letter say?
Basically, it says that the policy announced in a previous letter, dated February 27, 2013, should be followed.
That policy held that the faithful are not permitted to participate in events in which the authenticity of such apparitions would be taken for granted.
5) How does the letter explain this policy?
The letter explains it this way:
[T]he Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is in the process of investigating certain doctrinal and disciplinary aspects of the phenomenon of Medjugorje.
For this reason the Congregation has affirmed that, with regard to the credibility of the “apparitions” in question, all should accept the declaration, dated 10 April 1991, from the Bishops of the former Republic of Yugoslavia, which asserts:
“On the basis of the research that has been done, it is not possible to state that there were apparitions or supernatural revelations.”
It follows, therefore, that clerics and the faithful are not permitted to participate in meetings, conferences or public celebrations during which the credibility of such “apparitions” would be taken for granted.
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/14-things-to-know-and-share-about-the-new-letter-on-medjugorje
—Jimmy Akin, “14 things to know and share about the new letter on Medjugorje,” National Catholic Register (November 6, 2013)
To be continued 2
Gonzalinho
THE CASE OF OUR LADY OF MEDJUGORJE
DeleteContinued 2
The alleged apparitions at Medjugorje are a notable example of “clairvoyance” that is not conclusively demonic in origin. The declaration of the Yugoslav bishops with the jurisdiction to pronounce judgment on the alleged apparitions is that the phenomena cannot be affirmed to be “supernatural” in character, i.e. from God. They do not say that the phenomena are “preternatural,” i.e. from the devil.
It is a non-committal conclusion: it cannot be said either way that the apparitions are from God or from the devil. It is also an open-ended judgment in the following sense: it is not final and definitive so that it is possible that it could be revised favorably or unfavorably at some future point in time.
Notably, the apparitions at Medjugorje appear to have produced abundant good fruits:
“The Medjugorje phenomenon, by all accounts, has already produced spiritual fruits in great abundance. Letters, oral testimonies, even medical certificates, attest to miraculous healings, unexpected conversions and renewed faith. In Medjugorje’s wake, Catholic radio and television programs have sprung up, and new prayer groups and religious movements are being formed.”
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/medjugorje-deception-or-miracle-5427
—Antonio Gaspari, “Medjugorje Deception or Miracle?” EWTN. This article was taken from the November 1996 issue of “Inside the Vatican.”
Gonzalinho
The ecclesiastical judgments about Medjugorje leave the seers in an unfortunate and difficult limbo. If we look at the fate of Sr. Teresita Castillo—the seer of Mary, Mediatrix of All Grace—the situation doesn’t bode well for the Medjugorje seers. The status of their visions will probably remain in a kind of limbo until well after their deaths.
DeleteGonzalinho