MEDJEGURJE BOOK REVIEW

Medjugorje and the Light-Bearer

by Craig L. Heimbichner

In her book The Visions of the Children: The Apparitions of the Blessed Mother at Medjugorje, author Janice Connell has done all Catholics a great service. Her zeal and devotion to Mary apparent throughout the book, Connell has spent extensive time interviewing the visionaries who have reported apparitions of Our Lady since 1981. One of the most intriguing comments in the book, however, has passed almost unnoticed--a strange fact, since it is one of the few times a visionary has actually defined who is appearing. Vicka's definition slips in as Connell comments on Vicka's privilege of being with Mary daily. Vicka replies tersely, "Yes. She is the bearer of light."

Such a phrase may strike Catholic ears as a bit novel, but they may take it in stride as Vicka goes on to explain, "The light is Jesus." But such a phrase will not strike other ears as novel at all: in fact, Bearer of Light, or Light-Bearer, is not a new expression, but rather a very old title. In fact, it is a literal translation of the name Lucifer.

In Occult circles, this fact is a truism: Lucifer is the Light-Bearer, and the Light-Bearer is Lucifer. How could it be otherwise? It is simply a translation of his name. For example, the Grand Commander and architect of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, Albert Pike, paraphrases Freemason and Magus Eliphas Lévi, writing, "LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light...? Doubt it not!" The doctrine was also proclaimed by Madame Blavatsky, founder of the Occult Theosophical Society, who blamed the Catholic Church for illogically calling Lucifer, the Light-Bearer, a Spirit of Darkness: "...the Church, in her struggle with Manicheeism, invented the devil, and by placing a theological extinguisher on the radiant star-god, Lucifer, the "Son of the Morning," thus created the most gigantic of all her paradoxes--a black and tenebrous light..." Elsewhere she writes that "Lucifer is divine and terrestrial light, the "Holy Ghost" and "Satan," at one and the same time..." She concludes that "Lucifer, or "Light-Bearer," is in us..." A consistent Occultist who worshipped Satan, Blavatsky taught "that the Logos and Satan are one." Likewise Satanist Aleister Crowley, once head of the ruling body of Esoteric Freemasonry known as the Ordo Templi Orientis, also writes that "'Lucifer'...is not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods of our race, knowing Good and Evil; He bade 'Know Thyself!' and taught Initiation. He is "The Devil"...his letter is ayin, the Eye, so that he is Light..."

All of these Occultists are correct in translating "Lucifer" as "Light-Bearer;" where they obviously err is in failing to accept his fall. No longer a bearer of God's light, Lucifer has become the Adversary, or Satan, and the Prince of this fallen world. Refusing to accept the fall of Lucifer, Occultists frequently banter about the term "Light-Bearer," and many New Agers aspire to be Light-Bearers themselves. One well-known group which has adopted this title for its members is the Ananda Church of Kriyananda, a cult which runs the East-West Bookstores and carries Blavatsky, Crowley, and much Occult material. Many books on Medjugorje can also be found in an East-West shop, along with several more orthodox yet mystical Christian writers. However, traditional books on Fatima are strangely absent, as though they simply do not fit the atmosphere.

That Medjugorje books do fit the atmosphere is evident when we read that Vicka has called Mary the Light-Bearer--that is, she has called Mary Lucifer, since "Bearer of Light" is a literal translation of the term. In fact, since translations of Medjugorje messages are typically generated in as many languages as is practicable, a translation of Vicka's statement into Latin would simply state that Maria is Lucifer. Since Latin can still be heard around the Vatican, such a statement should give the Holy Father pause, should it ever reach his ears.

Of course, a devotee of Medjugorje will immediately object, as one did to me, saying, "But Mary is the true Light-Bearer, and Satan is the false Light-Bearer." However, if such a statement were true, then we could put it another way and say that the Devil is the false Lucifer, but Mary is the true Lucifer. Of course, no true Catholic would dare utter such sacrilege: and yet no other equation is possible. For followers of Medjugorje, Vicka's statement is a tremendous problem.

The problem develops as we realize that the titles of the Devil are never applied to God or His saints, and for good reason. Satan translates as Adversary, but God is never described as the Adversary of Evil, since a translation of the terms could be rendered the "Satan of Evil." Likewise, God is not called the Lord of the Flies(!), a translation of Beelzebub. The closest equivalence of titles occurs in the Apocalypse, where Jesus declares Himself to be the "bright and morning star." (Apoc. 22:16) Lucifer, the Latin term used by St. Jerome in the Vulgate in Isaias 14:12, has been replaced by some modern translators with "Morning Star" or "Day Star." However, one should remember that St. Jerome, living much closer to the time of Christ, was much more likely to discern fine nuances of meaning. One of the great values of the Vulgate of St. Jerome (the Official Bible of the Catholic Church) is precisely this "freezing" into Latin--a dead language--of the nuances of the original texts, nuances most likely impossible to recover at this distant date. It is significant that St. Jerome opts for the term Light-Bearer over "Day Star," similar though the terms may be. And St. Jerome's understanding is pregnant with meaning: describing the Angel who fell from Heaven as a "Day Star" does not tell us much; describing him as a Light-Bearer tells us a great deal--namely, that he would have had a great role in reflecting God's light and glory to us had he not fallen. Conversely, Jesus' description of Himself as a "bright and morning star" makes perfect sense, because Jesus gloriously rose from the dead on Easter morning--truly like a brilliant star which draws our attention as night turns to day. If Satan was any type of a star, he was a Shooting Star.

But if God or His saints are not described with titles of the Evil One, what are we to make of Vicka's statement regarding Mary as the "Bearer of Light?" We cannot dismiss it as a minor error; calling Mary by the original name of the Devil is hardly a small slip-up for an allegedly intimate seer of Mary carrying messages from Heaven to the world. Furthermore, the term "Bearer of Light" carries immediate signals to every Occultist around the world: it is a virtual code-name which prompts an immediate smile of recognition from Initiated Magicians and Freemasons everywhere. They will know who is appearing; Vicka has at least told them in unmistakable terms. More importantly, Vicka has told those of us who have ears to hear that Mary is not appearing to her, since a true seer of Mary would never commit the horrid sacrilege of giving the Mother of God an appellation of the Devil. No, Mary cannot possibly be appearing to Vicka: but she may have spoken a partial truth. She may indeed be conversant with Lucifer, since only a demonic spiritual cause can explain Vicka's supreme sacrilege against Mary, and since the Devil would love to arrogantly boast that he brings us Jesus.

All of us can be grateful to Jan Connell for her interview with Vicka: it has brought all seekers of the truth about Medjugorje a great shaft of sorely needed Light, exposing the arrogant spirit who still trumpets the lie that he has not fallen, and will bear light to us while he grovels in darkness. May we flee him under any and all of his titles; may we take refuge in the true Mother of God, who will one day crush the head of the foul and blasphemous serpent who dares attempt to apply his desecrated name to her untouchable purity. And may the Immaculate Mother of God, Mary, the Destroyer of all Heresies, protect us from all deception and lies of the foul and fallen enemy of God, Lucifer--the Light-Bearer.





From the Francis Phillips Review

“…Foley draws attention also to the close links between the Charismatic Renewal movement and the Medjugorje story. Fr Jozo Zovko, the Franciscan parish priest in June 1981, was very involved in charismatic prayer-groups. Charismatic channels undoubtedly helped initially to spread the phenomenon; these channels have continued to broadcast the regular messages from the Vision around the world. The Marian theologian, Fr Rene Laurentin, an eloquent supporter of the movement who has helped to give it credibility, is also a committed charismatic. Youth 2000, one of the Church’s new movements, has been linked to Medjugorje. But Foley points out that its founder, Ernest Williams, received his initial inspiration in Fatima in 1989 and that the CTS booklet on Youth 2000 states that it “awaits the definitive ruling of the Church” on the matter.

The author devotes much space to an analysis of the original 17 taped interviews with the seers, conducted by Fr Zovko and Fr Cuvalo, the parochial vicar, between 27-30 June 1981. These have certain disquieting features and are usually ignored in the copious Medjugorje literature. Vicka, one of the girls, mentions touching and kissing the Vision, who “kept laughing”; Ivan, the older boy, said the Vision’s hands were “trembling”. The Vision told the seers she would stay “as long as you wish!” She obligingly moved into the parish church (and then the presbytery) when the Communist authorities opposed the growing crowds on the hillside. All this, Foley suggests, is contrary to the comportment of Our Lady in her approved apparitions. His methodology includes close comparisons between the Medjugorje story and Fatima, two of whose seers have been beatified and whose spirituality has been profoundly influential in the teaching of John Paul II. He also makes the point that Our Lady’s role in the economy of salvation has always been just that; economical: few apparitions, succinct messages.

To my mind the most disturbing feature of this affair is not the charismatic element with its attendant publicity machine; nor is it the lifestyles of the seers, with their large houses and constant foreign tours; nor is it even the odd behaviour of the Vision, who is alleged to have appeared on fences, in fields, on a bell tower, in a bus, with her banal messages and their occasional dubious theology. It is simply the flagrant disobedience of the local Franciscans towards proper Church authority – their Bishop. After a lengthy investigation of the events the Ordinary of Mostar, Bishop Zanic, sent his definitive negative conclusions to the then Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the CDF, in April 1986. Even before this, the former head of the CDF, Cardinal Seper, had stated. “When the Franciscans obey the decrees of the Holy See, then I shall consider this phenomenon, not before.” In 1991 the Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference effectively supported Bishop Zanic’s conclusions by 19 votes with one abstention, in stating that after nearly ten years of alleged visions, it could not be affirmed that “supernatural apparitions and revelations” had taken place.

In October 1994, when attending the Synod of Bishops, Bishop Peric, Zanic’s successor, referred to many irregularities in Medjugorje: unauthorised religious communities establishing themselves; churches being built without permission; local Franciscans acting in disobedience. By 1997, more than 40 Franciscans were engaged in pastoral work in the diocese without faculties (i.e. diocesan permission). Adherents of Medjugorje always emphasise its “good fruits” – but surely the discord and divisiveness generated by such disobedience is very bad fruit? After all, it was disobedience – and a rotten apple – that drove our first parents out of Eden.

On the question of “good fruit”, Foley comments that conversions and renewed spiritual zeal are always good if they are genuine, lasting and not a transient emotional experience. He asks: in 25 years have the thousands of apparitions led to a renewal of parish life, fervour for the sacraments, increased vocations in our declining Western congregations? Or have they often led to an insatiable desire for more signs, wonders and messages - and to conflict and scandal? He quotes a priest-critic of those who adopt a too credulous attitude: “The devil is willing to tolerate some real good, so long as he has hope of accomplishing greater evil out of the affair in the long run.” The author is at pains to emphasise that the thousands of visitors to Medjugorje over the years have come in good faith, ignorant of the dissensions and scandals that surround the place; but their sincerity is no guarantee of authenticity. Further, he believes that the frenetic activities at the site have distracted attention from Fatima, the most spiritually significant of the approved apparitions of the 20th century. Foley’s sober presentation of facts is laborious and his style pedantic; but this very pedantry matters where rumour, unsubstantiated claims, fierce partisanship and rank disobedience are rife. This summer marks the 25th anniversary of the sightings, and there is no end in sight. Huge crowds, hungering for the supernatural, are expected at Medjugorje. Are they being led closer to God – or astray by his adversary? This is the question readers of this judicious and informative book must ask themselves.