DAMNATUR OPUSCULUM: “L’APPARITION DE LA TRÉS SAINTE VIERGE DE LA SALETTE”
DECRETUM
Feria IV, die 9 maii 1923
In generali consessu Supremae Sacrae Congregationis S. Officii Emi ac Rmi Domini Cardinales fidei et moribus tutandis praepositi proscripserunt atque damnaverunt opusculum: L’apparition de la trés Sainte Vierge sur la montague de la Salette le samedi septembre 1846.—Simple réimpression du texte intégral publié par Mélanie, etc. Societé Saint-Augustin, Paris-Rome-Bruges, 1922;
[ - ocr.pdf"] (1923) (http://"http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/docuмents/AAS 15 [1923) {PDF}, pp. 287-288. See also related decrees of the Holy Office. (http://jloughnan.tripod.com/sal_decr.htm)]
Michael Matt's introduction references the famous "Rome will lose the faith" part of this revelation, but wasn't that part of LaSalette placed on the Index?.
Schismatically-oriented traditionalists find in it vindication of their belief that Rome has in fact lost the faith, as have most of the world’s bishops.
.
Yes, it certainly was. Here is a history (https://www.truerestoration.org/the-holy-see-and-the-secret-of-la-salette/) of the various condemnations of this text and its proponents.
In brief, after a private revelation has been approved in either or both a negative and positive way by the Church, there is still no obligation on anyone who didn't directly/personally receive such a revelation to believe it by divine faith, but all we are required to do is not despise it.
It is interesting to me how many of the writings of the mystics/apparitionists are or were actually condemned by the Church (e.g., Mary of Agreda, Ann Catherine Emmerich, Valtorta, Melanie, Sr. Faustina, et al.), which is why I don't get too much into them, except for the ones which time has proven true (e.g., Fatima, Lourdes).
LaSalette was in fact approved by the Church, beginning with Pope Leo XIII, and all the Popes through Pius XII spoke favorably of it. Mary of Agreda's "condemnation" was borderline, passing by one vote if I recall among a group of academics at the Sorbonne, some of whom had Jansenist leanings, and due almost entirely to a defective French translation, but the condemnation was reversed by Rome.
And what do you mean by the Church? Your great Saint Wojtyla canonized Faustina, promoted her writings, and even made Divine Mercy into a Feast Day. I don't know how much more "approval" from "the Church" (as you hold it to be) you can get.
This line discredited the entire rant as having been driven by a Conciliarist agenda. Makes me wonder about how much of the rest is made up.
It is interesting to me how many of the writings of the mystics/apparitionists are or were actually condemned by the Church (e.g., Mary of Agreda, Ann Catherine Emmerich, Valtorta, Melanie, Sr. Faustina, et al.), which is why I don't get too much into them, except for the ones which time has proven true (e.g., Fatima, Lourdes).
Interesting that everyone you name is a woman. Just out of curiosity, do mystics and apparationists tend to be women (or, in the case of Fatima, children)? That'd be something to ponder.
Put another way, how many of them have been men? Only St Simon Stock comes to mind, as well as, of course, St Paul.
Now that you mention it, most "apparitionists", whether genuine or not, do tend to be women. For ones that aren't genuine, not only do women tend to have more active imaginations, but they also very much crave to be the center of attention and to be viewed as saints, special, and chosen by God. We do also have men like Padre Pio. But I'm convinced that many male saints who worked miracles also often received visions or apparitions ... but simply tended not to talk about these very much.Veronica Lueken and Mary Ann Van Hoof come immediately to mind.
When you start talking stupid like this, I just presume you’re drinking.
Yes, logic has never been your strong point, so it does not surprise me that it would impact your assent.
It is interesting to me how many of the writings of the mystics/apparitionists are or were actually condemned by the Church (e.g., Mary of Agreda, Ann Catherine Emmerich, Valtorta, Melanie, Sr. Faustina, et al.), which is why I don't get too much into them, except for the ones which time has proven true (e.g., Fatima, Lourdes).
:laugh1: Project much? Were you asleep during Logic class at seminary? You must have been.
Talk about absurd contradictory illogic. You claimed that Sister Faustina hasn't received "Church approval.". And yet you claim that Wojtyla was a legitimate Pope. Wojtyla canonized her, gave full approbation to "Divine Mercy", and even turned the Sunday after Easter officially into Divine Mercy Sunday.
"The Mystical City of God" was approved by five Popes.
This line discredited the entire rant as having been driven by a Conciliarist agenda. Makes me wonder about how much of the rest is made up.Yes, totally agree. Someone who is so blind they cannot see the crisis of Faith in the Church, how could you trust their judgement in any matter relating to the Faith?
Michael Matt's introduction references the famous "Rome will lose the faith" part of this revelation, but wasn't that part of LaSalette placed on the Index?Archbishop Lefebvre made reference to it more than once, notably in his sermon during the episcopal consecration ceremony of 1988:
.
Yes, it certainly was. Here is a history (https://www.truerestoration.org/the-holy-see-and-the-secret-of-la-salette/) of the various condemnations of this text and its proponents.
Very complicated, isn't it?On that, we agree.
We need to appoint an ecclesiastical commission to investigate... one day the truth will emerge.
One thing is (almost) certain: Rome has (seemingly) lost the Faith and become the seat of the antichrist. Contra factum non fit argumentum.
"The Mystical City of God" was approved by five Popes.
But how can it be true that the Holy See has lost faith and, at the same time, be true what the infallible magisterium of the First Vatican Council affirms here?: ..."Quin etiam Ecclesia per se ipsa, ob suam nempe admirabilem propagationem, eximiam sanctitatem et inexhaustam in omnibus bonis foecunditatem, ob catholicam unitatem invictamque stabilitatem magnum quoddam et perpetuum est motivum credibilitatis et divinae suae legationis testimony irrefragabile." (Dz 3013 1794).
From Yeti's citation:
Interesting that everyone you name is a woman. Just out of curiosity, do mystics and apparationists tend to be women (or, in the case of Fatima, children)? That'd be something to ponder.Every female is a mystic.
Put another way, how many of them have been men? Only St Simon Stock comes to mind, as well as, of course, St Paul.
Also from Yeti's link to True Restoration Press is this note (the following argument is often made by those who oppose Valtorta, but evidently dismissed by those same persons who promote the Indexed portion of La Salette):
"By “Holy See,” the Code of Canon Law (can. 7) designates “not just the Roman Pontiff, but also…the Congregations, Tribunals, and Offices through which the same Roman Pontiff is wont to expedite the affairs of the Universal Church.” In our present work are to be found docuмents from the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (which was, in Roman Curia, the “Supreme” Congregation), and from the Sacred Congregation of the Index. Concerning the worth of the decisions issued by Sacred Roman Congregations, let us recall that Saint Pius X, in the Decree Lamentabilii, adjunct to the Encyclical Pascendi, condemned the modernist proposition according to which “They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.” (D.S. 3408). "
Therefore, if we are to shun Valtorta because it was condemned by the preconciliar Holy Office, why am I not to shun the condemned portions of La Salette for the same reason.
Note: I have no interest in Valtorta; I'm just pointing out the inconsistency.
So why don't the words of St. Pius X apply to the Roman Congregations of today? St. Pius X obviously meant that ... until Sean Johnson decides otherwise. What's this "preconciliar" nonsense? So the preconciliar Holy Office requires obedience but the later ones don't? It's utterly ridiculous.
No one is "treating lightly" these condemnations, but if you read the material carefully, nowhere will you find any actual scrutiny and judgment about the contents of the Secret itself. Almost every "docuмent" above deals with explanations, commentaries, unauthorized publications, etc. There's only one reference in that entire wall of material requesting that Melanie stop distributing the pamphlet and "especially" any explanations of the Secret. Seems to me that what's more at issue are interpretations, many of which tended to be un-nuanced anti-clerical and therefore anti-Catholic screeds.
There's nothing there denouncing the words of the Secret themselves as illegitimate.
Loudestmouth now disregards St. Pius X on Newman, Lamentabili, and the preconciliar Curia.
Good job, buddy!
Sean would be the ideal college campus manager of a Newman club.
ThePresentEternal Position of Cardinal Newman
Question by The Point: What is it about John Henry Newman, English convert and Cardinal, that Catholics chiefly remember?
Answer by Fr. Leonard Feeney: His mastery of English prose.
Q. What is it about John Henry Newman that Catholics of our day generally forget?
A. They forget, or never have been told of, his Jєωιѕн descent.
Q. If we Catholics were to bear in mind Newman’s real ancestry when we are appraising his literary ability, could we not then boast that we have had in our fold the greatest Jєωιѕн writer in the English language?
A. We could, except for the fact that there have been in the English language other Jєωιѕн writers, like Robert Browning, Max Beerbohm, and Philip Guedalla, who never once thought of joining the Catholic Church.
Q. Apart from his literary abilities, did not Newman make a good conversion to the Catholic Church?
A. He made a nostalgic conversion.
Q. What sort of conversion is that?
A. It is a conversion effected in a typical Old Testament manner, in which one is always sighing after the “flesh-pots” of things one has abandoned, and which in Newman’s case required an Apologia Pro Vita Sua, an apology for his own life, to justify.
Q. After his conversion, and his ordination to the priesthood, is it really true that Newman used often to forego theological studies and pastoral pursuits in order to devote more time to reading from the pagan Greeks?
A. Biographers disagree. Newman’s only comment in the matter was his repeated remark, “I shall never be a saint, for I love the pagan classics too intensely.”
Q. Did not the blood which he inherited, from the Jєωιѕн moneylender who was his father, allow Newman to bring to the Faith some of those same racial qualities possessed by the very earliest Christians, by Our Lord’s own Apostles and disciples?
A. The Jєωιѕн qualities which Newman brought to the Faith have been very tidily set in order by Canon William Barry, STD, the eminent English authority on Newman. Canon Barry reports that to Newman’s “Hebrew affinities” the following qualities are attributed: “ … his cast of features, his remarkable skill in music and mathematics, his dislike of metaphysical speculations, his grasp of the concrete, and his nervous temperament.”
Q. What was it that Newman called those fellow Catholics of his who, at the time of the Vatican Council, were in favor of having the Pope’s personal infallibility defined?
A. Newman nervously called them, “an aggressive and insolent faction.”
Q. Was this attitude toward the definition of Papal infallibility the reason why Pope Pius IX so totally mistrusted Newman?
A. It was one of the reasons.
Q. If Pope Pius IX so frowned upon him, why was Newman made a Cardinal?
A. Newman was made a Cardinal after Pope Pius IX died, when the Catholic Duke of Norfolk prevailed upon the newly installed Leo XIII to brighten the aged Newman’s final years with a red hat.
Q. Is it in England that Cardinal Newman’s spirit best survives today?
A. It is not. Modern Catholic Englishmen, without analyzing it, sense that Cardinal Newman was, religiously, the kind of interloper in their midst that Prime Minister Disraeli was politically.
Q. Where then have Newman’s name and fame been most perpetuated?
A. In America, in the form of clubs. Newman Clubs, they are called.
Q. What is a Newman Club?
A. It is an organized excuse for the presence, the sinful presence, of Catholic students at secular universities founded and fostered by Masons and, lately, indoctrinated by Jєωs.
The irony of quoting a heretic (Feeney) against a theologian endorsed by St. Pius X is too rich to let slide.
Loudestmouth now disregards St. Pius X on Newman, Lamentabili, and the preconciliar Curia.
Good job, buddy!
Interesting that everyone you name is a woman. Just out of curiosity, do mystics and apparationists tend to be women (or, in the case of Fatima, children)? That'd be something to ponder.Quite a few have been men. Consider St Raymond of Penafort, St Peter Nolasco, King James I od Aragon, the Seven Holy Servite Founders, St Martin de Porres, just scratching the surface.
Put another way, how many of them have been men? Only St Simon Stock comes to mind, as well as, of course, St Paul.
What a buffoon. Did you even read what was written by St. Pius X and Cardinal Merry del Val? They explicitly said they weren't condemning the Secret, and the only work to which they referred were some Annals of Our Lady's Crusaders, a publication being circulated by the disobedient priest, and they were denouncing his refusal to obey his bishop.
But how can it be true that the Holy See has lost faith and, at the same time, be true what the infallible magisterium of the First Vatican Council affirms here?: ..."Quin etiam Ecclesia per se ipsa, ob suam nempe admirabilem propagationem, eximiam sanctitatem et inexhaustam in omnibus bonis foecunditatem, ob catholicam unitatem invictamque stabilitatem magnum quoddam et perpetuum est motivum credibilitatis et divinae suae legationis testimony irrefragabile." (Dz 3013 1794).The Church endures, as Our Lord established it, in spite of this human element. Does that not even provide an additional motive for credibility?
The Church endures, as Our Lord established it, in spite of this human element. Does that not even provide an additional motive for credibility?
"The authority of the papacy is not founded upon the personal faith of any individual... The fact that the Pope cannot fail in this faith means that, even if he were personally a heretic, yet insofar as he teaches ex cathedra he cannot teach anything contrary to the faith. It is in this faith, therefore - which is the faith of the papacy, and not of the person, and which was the faith of Peter and his confession - in this alone the papacy is founded, and not in the personal faith even of the very person of the Pope." - John of St Thomas, Cursus Theologici II-II De Auctoritate Summi Ponfificis, Disp.II, Art.III, De Depositione Papae
Interesting that everyone you name is a woman. Just out of curiosity, do mystics and apparationists tend to be women (or, in the case of Fatima, children)? That'd be something to ponder.Add Juan Diego, St John of the Cross, St Francis of Assisi, St Francis Xavier, St Joseph of Cupertino, St Charles Borromeo, St Philip Neri...
Put another way, how many of them have been men? Only St Simon Stock comes to mind, as well as, of course, St Paul.
This interpretation seems very reasonable, since the devil, wanting to imitate the works of God, would place the seat of his vicar, who is the Antichrist, next to the seat of the Vicar of Christ."
Add Juan Diego, St John of the Cross, St Francis of Assisi, St Francis Xavier, St Joseph of Cupertino, St Charles Borromeo, St Philip Neri...
What a buffoon. Did you even read Lamentabili, or Pius X's condemnation of those who dismiss Indexed works, or pay any heed to the fact that the book was written in obedience to her confessors, burnt twice, and recommenced three times, never of her own volition. The book was condemned in 1681 by Innocent XI, but execution was suspended for Spain. The Sorbonne or University of Paris did the same in 1696 by 102 votes of 152 after having had it examined by 132 doctors of theology.
Michael Matt's introduction references the famous "Rome will lose the faith" part of this revelation, but wasn't that part of LaSalette placed on the Index?Someone recently sent me this conference by Dr Peter Chojnowski. Listen from about 18:00.
Veronica Lueken and Mary Ann Van Hoof come immediately to mind.So do you believe Leuken and Van Hoof to be legitimate apparitions or mental delusions?
I didn't think of Padre Pio.
It is interesting to me how many of the writings of the mystics/apparitionists are or were actually condemned by the Church (e.g., Mary of Agreda, Ann Catherine Emmerich, Valtorta, Melanie, Sr. Faustina, et al.), which is why I don't get too much into them, except for the ones which time has proven true (e.g., Fatima, Lourdes).Re: Ann Catherine Emmerich
Someone recently sent me this conference by Dr Peter Chojnowski. Listen from about 18:00.Thank you PV for posting this. The entire talk was well worth listening to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho4_AmyDtLE&t=1372s