ANSWER:
Thank you for this excellent question. The first thing we must do is ask the question with good theological language and in a specific way. The first question has to do with the events of Medjugorge (Croatia). The Roman Catholic bishop of Mostar which is the local has not approved (and indeed opposed) these apparitions, so the point is rather moot even from a Roman Catholic perspective. We should also point out that there used to be an Orthodox see in Mostar, which means that the schism between East and the West deeply affected the local Church (i.e. the catholic Church in Patristic language). In fact, this entire area was the theater of some of the most awful atrocities committed in the name of God.
It is true that many people have visited Medjugorge and returned with stories of miracles and conversions. It should be said that such stories have been heard of religious shrines since the dawn of times, from ancient Greece to the Himalayas. These accounts prove nothing in themselves, and they have been interpreted in many ways: (1) God (and His angels) work miracles for people has He pleased according to the purity of the heart, not religious affiliation (Malachi 1:11); (2) The human spirit is powerful and that many of the healings are psychosomatic; (3) That God can turn all things for good (even possibly fake apparitions) for those who come to seek Him; (4) that it is demonic forces that are at work in these cases.
Option (4) is tempting but extremely dangerous; ascribing to the Evil One was actually comes from the Finger of God (Luke 11) is exactly what the unbelievers did to Jesus and it is in this context that the Lord talked about a sin against the Spirit that cannot be forgiven.
The case of Lourdes is somewhat different and will force us to examine the wording of the question. In "If the Roman Church..." do we mean Roman Catholic Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Communion) or the Church (or diocese) of Rome? Likewise what is meant by "true Church?" "True" is not a biblical, patristic or tradition adjective for the word Church. Properly speaking, the Church is the Eucharist assembly presided over by the bishop with the presbyters, deaconate and people; what we often call the diocese in modern language. The adjective used the ancient writers is that the Church is "whole" and "one, holy, catholic and apostolic;" and that the faith is "orthodox". "True" would then imply that that there would be such as thing as a "Church" that is false (but then it wouldn't be a Church at all). The patristic view would be that in a given city (the Church is always manifested in this context) there should be only one bishop, one assured and catholic Church of the orthodox faith (see decrees of Nicea). Trouble came when two bishops (two Churches) appeared in a given place, both having some claim to legitimacy as was the case of Antioch at the time of St. Basil. In many cases, it seems clear that a so-called "Church" (i.e. notably man-made denominations) is not in anyway the Church of Christ (i.e. the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church) but only an unauthorized, unorthodox and schismatic assembly (see Irenaeus).
Let us now turn to Lourdes, which is an extension (parish) of the Church (diocese) of Tarbes (France), which has always only had a bishop in communion with the Church of Rome (there is no Orthodox bishop there). The question would be: is the Church manifest in Tarbes (and Lourdes), albeit in an imperfect way due to "the ignorance and errors of the people" (cf. Liturgy of St. Chrysostom). Some Orthodox would answer no - that the Church is not there in Tarbes due to heresy and corruption. However, this view is very problematic. One could argue that the Church, say in Constantinople, was equally corrupt and for long intervals in heresy (i.e. during the iconoclastic crisis, at the time of St. Maximus, etc.) Moreover, the Churches of the West were generally aligned with that of Rome which had made a claim to supremacy early on (cf. Victor, Stephen, Leo). The best view would seem to be that the Church of Tarbes (and Lourdes) was undoubtedly in a defective state but the Church noneless, in spite of the tragic and increasingly damaging schism with the ancient Eastern Patriarchates and Churches. Regarding the miracles of Lourdes, the same possibilities to explains the miracles (which are very well documented by the medical commission) can be listed as above. Since miracles has happened throughout all cultures and religious eras, none of this is relevant to the human quest for true religion, which it is worth remembering is primarily defined by Saint James (1:17) as "to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." |
