MYSTERY OF MEDJUGORJE RISEN CHRIST STATUE

MYSTERY OF MEDJUGORJE RISEN CHRIST STATUE

 

MYSTERY OF MEDJUGORJE RISEN CHRIST STATUE

 

With liquid dripping from one knee, the bronze sculpture of the Risen Christ has been a mystery in Medjugorje since 2001. While the nature of the liquid is itself mysterious, the mystery as such has just increased, for these days the unknown substance flows from both legs of the sculpture. 

Pilgrims standing in line with handkerchiefs, ready to collect drops of the liquid that flows from the Risen Christ sculpture

Almost 11 years after one of the knees of the Risen Christ sculpture in Medjugorje first started to shed a tear-like liquid, even returning pilgrims are surprised by the sculpture these days: Now the watery substance comes from both legs.

“Yes, it is true. Water is coming from both legs now. The new drip is actually just above the knee, on the lower thigh. The new drip is stronger than the older one” film-maker and Queen of Peace Productions founder Sean Bloomfield reports from Medjugorje.

The right leg of the sculpture from where liquid started dripping in 2001

“With all the people in Medjugorje now, having both knees dripping sure helps in the crowd flow!” he adds on the discussion board at where another pilgrim just back from Medjugorje likewise tells to have witnessed the substance dripping from both sculpture legs.

The sculpture has shown to be unpredictable on previous occasions as well. Several times, the dripping has stopped for extended periods of time. One such occasion in 2010 coincided with Medjugorje receiving large amounts of rain, weakening a theory that the watery substance could be rain dripping out from inside the sculpture.

On another occasion, a large group of pilgrims witnessed how the substance was suddenly red and no longer clear:

“My friend Drago who lives in Medjugorje has informed me that this past week a man took a paper napkin and reached to take a drop of oil from the Risen Christ statue. When he looked at the napkin it is reported that the napkin was full of blood. A minimum of 50 people witnessed this. Some screamed in fear and some said, “It’s a miracle”  reported by that time.

Gallons of mysterious liquid have been gathered by Medjugorje pilgrims in the course of the almost 11 years when the substance has been flowing from the Risen Christ sculpture behind the outdoor altar of St. James Church

Vatican experts have been rumored to have analyzed the substance, but neither Rome nor the parish of Medjugorje have ever confirmed such analysis to have taken place.

The statue is a replica of the 277 centimeter silver sculpture “The Resurrection”, sculpted by Andrej Ajdic and presented to Pope John Paul II on the occasion of his 1996 visit to Slovenia

Medjugorje: Awaiting a verdict

 

Medjugorje

Andrea TornielliVatican City
A Vatican Insider article dedicated to the work of the Committee on the apparitions of Medjugorje, presided over by Cardinal Camillo Ruini, has provoked some quite varied reactions. You can read more on one of these reactions by following this link:

The article stated that in addition to the positive formula (“constat de supernaturalitate”, established as supernatural) and the decidedly negative one ("constat de non supernaturalitate, “It is established that there is nothing supernatural here”), there is also an intermediate formula (“non constat de supernaturalitate”, there is nothing supernatural here). In fact, the latest available standards published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1978, the result of a decision by the former Holy Office discussed four years previously, only covers the first and third formulations set out above. The first case gives an affirmative answer to the question of supernatural events. In the second case ("no constat de ...") the answer is negative.

It was recalled that on the eve of his appointment as prefect of the Congregation of Saints in 2008, the then secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Angelo Amato, gave an interview on the subject to the Catholic newspaper Avvenire. And when asked if the "no constat de ..." could be considered to be awaiting judgment, while the "de constat non ..." represents a decidedly negative opinion, Amato said: “In the rules we are referring to, mention is only made to "constat de" and not "constat de". No mention is made to "constat de non”.”

From the standards issued in 1978, according to Amato’s explanation, it follows that the only negative formula provided is the “non constat de” one. It therefore seems inappropriate to present it as a sort of judgment on appeal. It is, instead, the negative answer to the question on whether the alleged apparition is supernatural or not.

It must be clear, however, that one cannot believe the “constat de non supernaturalitate” formula (the one that strongly backed the evidence against the existence supernatural element), to have disappeared just because it makes no reference to the rules of 1978 – which were never published. Although it is true that it is not taken into consideration (even though it was up until the last draft), it is still forms part of Church practice.  It was used for example in the case of Heroldsbach in Germany: the statement “constare de non supernaturalitate” of July 18, 1951 was then approved by Pius XII and published by L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s daily broadsheet newspaper. Another problematic case in which the formula was used is that concerning the apparitions and revelations of the Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam. On April 5, 1974 Paul VI approved the Congregation's decision to publish the negative judgment “constat de non supernaturalitate”. The notification of 1974 was proposed again in the collection “Documenta Congregationis pro Doctrina Fidei” published in 2006 (Document 22, p. 90). It is interesting to note that the apparitions in Amsterdam will be approved later by the local bishop.

But now the only negative formula cited in the standards of 1978 is “non constat de…”which is the answer to the question of whether the appearance has a supernatural element. The “non constat de…” may thus indicate a lack of moral certainty in the judges called upon to rule, or the lack of convincing evidence for a negative judgment. If however there is evidence that excludes the supernatural nature, this could again affirm the formula “constat de non supranaturalitate”, as explained to Vatican Insider by the authoritative experts that work in the Holy See.
 
As for the pronouncement on Medjugorje, the work of the commission headed by Ruini will conclude before the end of 2012. The committee will produce a document, a confidential opinion, which will be examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will be a reasoned and documented opinion - not a decision - that after the screening of the former Holy Office will be submitted to Pope Benedict XVI who will decide what to do; namely, whether to publish it, having the doctrinal ministry pronounce itself on Medjugorje or whether to wait a bit longer given the fact that the apparition phenomenon is not over yet.
 
However, it seems difficult to imagine the conclusions of a committee that was appointed to examine the case and express itself on the issue being locked away in a drawer. Many devotees of Medjugorje, as well as many individuals who do not believe in the authenticity of these apparitions, are waiting for the Church to make a statement in regard to this.