Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Respectful correction  (Read 3135 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 12495
  • Reputation: +8275/-1581
  • Gender: Male
Re: Respectful correction
« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2022, 04:19:55 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Having read 1 Thess, 1 Cor, and Session 11 in their entirety I distilled this:

    Nothing newsworthy or controversial at all:

    • private revelation deserves great skepticism "tested"
    • do not despise prophesy approved by the Pope (or delegated bishop)
    • not binding at all beyond what is already in public revelation and the Magisterium
    • the encyclical creates no "third" type of revelation.

    NIFH's own references reject his repetitious claims.
    Logged

    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 214
    • Reputation: +60/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Respectful correction
    « Reply #16 on: March 27, 2022, 05:16:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]But if the Lord reveals to certain of them, by some inspiration, some future events in the church of God, as he promises by the prophet Amos and as the apostle Paul, the chief of preachers, says, Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, we have no wish for them to be counted with the other group of story-tellers and liars or to be otherwise hindered. For, as Ambrose bears witness, the grace of the Spirit himself is being extinguished if fervour in those beginning to speak is quietened by contradiction. In that case, a wrong is certainly done to the holy Spirit. The matter is important inasmuch as credence must not be easily given to every spirit and, as the Apostle states, the spirits have to be tested to see whether they come from God. It is therefore our will that as from now, by common law, alleged inspirations of this kind, before they are published, or preached to the people, are to be understood as reserved for examination by the apostolic see.[/color]
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12495
    • Reputation: +8275/-1581
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Respectful correction
    « Reply #17 on: March 27, 2022, 05:25:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: NIFH on March 27, 2022, 05:16:30 PM
    But if the Lord reveals to certain of them, by some inspiration, some future events in the church of God, as he promises by the prophet Amos and as the apostle Paul, the chief of preachers, says, Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, we have no wish for them to be counted with the other group of story-tellers and liars or to be otherwise hindered. For, as Ambrose bears witness, the grace of the Spirit himself is being extinguished if fervour in those beginning to speak is quietened by contradiction. In that case, a wrong is certainly done to the holy Spirit. The matter is important inasmuch as credence must not be easily given to every spirit and, as the Apostle states, the spirits have to be tested to see whether they come from God. It is therefore our will that as from now, by common law, alleged inspirations of this kind, before they are published, or preached to the people, are to be understood as reserved for examination by the apostolic see.

    Totally non-controversial.

    Do not despise all prophesy, but be skeptical of prophesy.
    Judgement on whether prophesy transgresses the Faith is reserved to a true Pope.

    So what?

    No binding.
    No "third" type of revelation.

    And, remember, you started this thread binding us to "the complete message of Our Lady." Not even you know the complete message.

    I'm tired already of you repeating your claims and me repeating the antidote.

    If you have something new and supportive, put it on the table, otherwise this is a waste of both our times.
    Logged

    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 214
    • Reputation: +60/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Respectful correction
    « Reply #18 on: March 27, 2022, 05:37:06 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • In addition to this theological proof, there is an argument (not proof) from natural law that we are bound to believe the message of Fatima.

    We are bound to believe, to a reasonable extent, reasonable statements from reasonable people.  For example, if you are told your house is burning, you do not have the right to reply that since the burning of your house is not found in Scripture or Tradition, you need not take his report seriously.  "... the testimony of two men is true." (John 8:17). How seriously must we receive the report of the three children who submitted to be boiled to death in oil rather than recant their report!  Added to the reports of 70,000 witnesses of the Miracle of the Sun, our obligation to believe to a reasonable extent the words of our neighbors, approaches an obligation to believe the seers with certitude.
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12495
    • Reputation: +8275/-1581
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Respectful correction
    « Reply #19 on: March 27, 2022, 05:49:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • So, what is this "reasonable" belief about Fatima that you are trying to enforce?
    Logged

    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 214
    • Reputation: +60/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Respectful correction
    « Reply #20 on: March 27, 2022, 06:30:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Tripling our obligation, we have a historical argument from St. Margaret Mary Alacoque.

    This New Testament prophet relayed to the King of France Our Lord's command for him to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  The command was given on the 17th of June, 1689.  Following the disobedience of the monarchs, on the 17th of June, 1789 (one hundred years to the day) the French Third Estate stripped the king of his legislative powers, shortly later imprisoned him, and finally beheaded him as a common criminal.

    Frighteningly, Our Lord told Sister Lucy, "Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune."  Our Blessed Lord does not tolerate His messages through his prophets being held as optional for belief.
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12495
    • Reputation: +8275/-1581
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Respectful correction
    « Reply #21 on: March 27, 2022, 06:34:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: NIFH on March 27, 2022, 06:30:18 PM
    Tripling our obligation, we have a historical argument from St. Margaret Mary Alacoque.

    This New Testament prophet relayed to the King of France Our Lord's command for him to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  The command was given on the 17th of June, 1689.  Following the disobedience of the monarchs, on the 17th of June, 1789 (one hundred years to the day) the French Third Estate stripped the king of his legislative powers, shortly later imprisoned him, and finally beheaded him as a common criminal.

    Frighteningly, Our Lord told Sister Lucy, "Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune."  Our Blessed Lord does not tolerate His messages through his prophets being held as optional for belief.

    So, what is this "reasonable" belief about Fatima that you are trying to enforce?
    Logged

    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 214
    • Reputation: +60/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Respectful correction
    « Reply #22 on: March 27, 2022, 06:48:42 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • The purpose of the respectful correction was to remove precursors of doubts from the minds of my brethren of the account they will be asked to render on how much they prayed, sacrificed and acted towards the accomplishment of what God obliges us to believe is the prophecy for our time.
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12495
    • Reputation: +8275/-1581
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Respectful correction
    « Reply #23 on: March 27, 2022, 06:54:03 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: NIFH on March 27, 2022, 06:48:42 PM
    The purpose of the respectful correction was to remove precursors of doubts from the minds of my brethren of the account they will be asked to render on how much they prayed, sacrificed and acted towards the accomplishment of what God obliges us to believe is the prophecy for our time.

    Your reference tells us to be skeptical of private interpretations of private revelations, a fortiori private revelations that are not completely revealed.

    Indeed, this is our point of contention.

    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12495
    • Reputation: +8275/-1581
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Respectful correction
    « Reply #24 on: March 27, 2022, 07:13:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mark 79 on March 27, 2022, 06:54:03 PM
    Your reference tells us to be skeptical of private interpretations of private revelations, a fortiori private revelations that are not completely revealed.

    Indeed, this is our point of contention.

    In this vein I am going to briefly divert into a tangent on skepticism.

    It behooves us to have a balance of skepticism and submission.

    I say this because I see some here who seem crippled in their undue skepticism.

    Sure, it is healthy to be skeptical of the claims of mystics and hucksters. At some point it becomes crippling to be so skeptical that you trust no one—not your plumber, not your surgeon, not your tax lawyer. 

    //Rant off//

    Logged

    Offline Charity

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 885
    • Reputation: +444/-105
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Respectful correction
    « Reply #25 on: March 27, 2022, 09:51:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: NIFH on March 27, 2022, 06:48:42 PM
    The purpose of the respectful correction was to remove precursors of doubts from the minds of my brethren of the account they will be asked to render on how much they prayed, sacrificed and acted towards the accomplishment of what God obliges us to believe is the prophecy for our time.
    Again, I repeat I believe in Fatima.  I promote its belief and prayers and sacrifices it calls for.  Nevertheless, by means of the below hypothetical scenario I seek concrete clarification from you in terms of a "belief and practice of Fatima under pain of committing a sin."  The question of the popes failure to properly consecrate Fatima is on them.  The question of the faithful abiding by the specific demands of the Five First Saturdays is a separate one.

    I have never heard a priest or bishop or pope declare in writing or otherwise that it is a sin for one to not believe in Fatima nor more specifically to not carry out the Five First Saturdays Devotion.  So are you saying it is an actual sin?

    Interesting scenario:  Penitent goes into the Confessional to make a General Confession: "Bless me Father for I have sinned."  After stating all kinds of sins over a number of years he finishes by stating: "As far as Fatima goes I never did the Five First Saturdays Devotion even though I was able to do them.  Please tell me Father if as a Catholic I have committed a sin by my failure to do the Five First Saturdays Devotion and whether it is a venial sin or a mortal sin and if so is it because the Church binds me by moral obligation to believe in Fatima and therefore to do them?"  So with all due precision and based simply on the information provided how should the priest respond to the penitent based on what you are trying to get across in this thread?
    Logged

    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 214
    • Reputation: +60/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Respectful correction
    « Reply #26 on: March 28, 2022, 05:08:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Though you will not find a verbatim declaration of the Magisterium binding one to believe "that David was the son of Jesse," you will find a definition binding one to believe everything in Holy Writ.  Denying Jesse's fatherhood of David would make one a heretic.

    Though you will not find a verbatim declaration of the Magisterium binding one "to believe in Fatima," you will find a verse in Scripture binding one to believe approved New Testament prophets.  You will find an infallible definition assigning the approving of New Testament prophets to the pope.  The pope approved Fatima, which is a public prophecy addressed to each one of us, not a private revelation addressed to an individual.

    Our Holy Mother asked for the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays in this binding prophecy.  Our obligation of charity towards our Blessed Mother, to whom we owe more than we can imagine, certainly requires us to console her Immaculate Heart in the manner she revealed to prefer.  If enough of us love the Blessed Virgin and obey her requests to us, she will supply us with churchmen who will obey her requests to them.

    The priest who hears the Confession of an objectively ungrateful and negligent son of his Mother will certainly give judgement and counsel in accordance with what he gathers of the subjective aspects of the scenario (degree/lack of knowledge, inconvenience, etc.).
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12495
    • Reputation: +8275/-1581
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Respectful correction
    « Reply #27 on: March 28, 2022, 06:13:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Argumentum repetandum.


    Quote
    But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.  But to us God hath revealed them, by his Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 1 Corinthians 2:9-10



    Verse 10 you cited, simply states that God revealed "them."
    Verse 9 you didn't cite, identifies the antecedent of Verse 10's, "the things that God hath prepared."

    No mention of prophet, prophesies, or cognates thereof. No mention of binding or synonyms.
    There is no reasonable inference supporting your contention that we are bound to private revelation.



    Quote
    Despise not prophecies. But prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21


    No news. Do not reflexively reject private revelation, but be skeptical—prove those "things" and hold those things that are "good." How do we know what is good? Comparison with what is publicly revealed—in Scripture and Magisterium.
    Non-controversial.

    We cannot be bound to private revelation beyond what is already publicly known.

    Even the deceivers have been forced to admit that the Third Secret is already revealed in Daniel and Apocalypse.

    So, what is it that you want us to believe that we don't already know? First Saturdays? We already knew that Mass, Communion, and Confession are "that which is good."


    Logged

    Offline NIFH

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 214
    • Reputation: +60/-30
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Respectful correction
    « Reply #28 on: March 28, 2022, 10:16:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 1 Cor. 12:10 (not 2:10) for God's acknowledgement of prophets inspired by the Holy Ghost in the Mystical Body of Christ (not just Old Testament).   Thessalonians for the binding to believe them, and the Council for matching the proven prophets with the obligation.

    In the reference to St. Thomas, the Angelic Doctor teaches that no new doctrine is ever revealed in public prophetic revelations.  Rather, God gives directions for specific actions to be undertaken by His creatures of that generation.  After reminding us of prayer, penance, amendment of life, devotion to the Blessed Mother and more, He revealed through His Mother His wish for the Consecration and the First Saturdays, accompanied by promises of several specific results of our obedience and disobedience.

    These duties He binds us to accomplish according to our means.  He gave several concessions to accommodate those unable to accomplish the First Saturdays in their standard form.
    Logged

    Offline Charity

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 885
    • Reputation: +444/-105
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Respectful correction
    « Reply #29 on: March 28, 2022, 10:37:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: NIFH on March 28, 2022, 10:16:23 PM


    These duties He binds us to accomplish according to our means.  He gave several concessions to accommodate those unable to accomplish the First Saturdays in their standard form.
    So are you saying that one who goes to Confession each month should confess his failure to accomplish the First Saturday devotion for that month with all that it entails assuming that he could have done it, but he failed to do it?  Same same for a failure to say the daily rosary for any particular day when he could have said it, but failed to say it?  I certainly have never seen any of this on any Catholic Confessional check list and I have seen a lot of them.  Should pastors not be telling the faithful that it is a sin to not abide by these Fatima devotions.  I have heard many pastors promote the Fatima devotions (rosary and First Saturdays), but I have never once heard them tell the faithful that to not keep them is actually a sin.  You, on the other hand, are clearly indicating that failure to abide by them is a sin.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 [2] 3
    « previous next »