Author Topic: CHURCH OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZES 1859 MARIAN APPARITION (Read 3629 times)

RomanCatholic1953 · « **on:** December 08, 2010, 05:26:45 PM »

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bestoftheweb/~3/9ZRLil3mg44/857-worthy-of-belief.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #1 on:** December 08, 2010, 07:45:30 PM »

Those may have been genuine apparitions that are worthy of approval by legitimate Catholic Church authorities.

But I do not care about an approval by a Novus Ordo bishop.

Yes, the bishop gave his approval, but does Our Lady give her approval to the bishop and the New Religion that Bishop Ricken belongs to and presides over in his diocese?

Is The Approver an approved approver?

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #2 on:** December 08, 2010, 08:38:49 PM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Is The Approver an approved approver?

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #3 on:** December 08, 2010, 11:00:50 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Roman Catholic
Is The Approver an approved approver?

:wink:

Belloc · « **Reply #4 on:** December 09, 2010, 07:43:19 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Those may have been genuine apparitions that are worthy of approval by legitimate Catholic Church authorities.

But I do not care about an approval by a Novus Ordo bishop.

Yes, the bishop gave his approval, but does Our Lady give her approval to the bishop and the New Religion that Bishop Ricken belongs to and presides over in his diocese?

Is The Approver an approved approver?

Mary told Sr. Lucia to reveal teh 3rd secret in 1960

questions
did Mary not know that there would be a 2 yr vacant seat when she asked the 3rd secret revealed in 1960?
Did Mary think Siri would reveal the secret?
DId Mary know that Siri steppeddown, supposedly?
Did the vacant seat thing surprise Mary?

If we then believe that Mary told Lucia that the 3rd secret be revealed in 1960, what gives??

MyrnaM · « **Reply #5 on:** December 09, 2010, 08:03:42 AM »

Could it be that Mary asked for the secret to be revealed in 1960 on purpose to wake us up. I know I asked my priest in 1960, (I was 20 years at that time). I asked my priest and when he gave me some malarky I started to wonder what was going on. Sorry to say, after awhile I put it on the back burner of my life, but from time to time I would ask about it and each time felt something fishy was going on.

When I finally realized about the apostasy, this ignoring of Our Lady's request helped me to realize the truth.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #6 on:** December 09, 2010, 08:16:37 AM »

Quote from: Belloc

Quote from: Roman Catholic
Those may have been genuine apparitions that are worthy of approval by legitimate Catholic Church authorities.

But I do not care about an approval by a Novus Ordo bishop.

Yes, the bishop gave his approval, but does Our Lady give her approval to the bishop and the New Religion that Bishop Ricken belongs to and presides over in his diocese?

Is The Approver an approved approver?

Mary told Sr. Lucia to reveal teh 3rd secret in 1960

questions
did Mary not know that there would be a 2 yr vacant seat when she asked the 3rd secret revealed in 1960?
Did Mary think Siri would reveal the secret?
DId Mary know that Siri steppeddown, supposedly?
Did the vacant seat thing surprise Mary?

If we then believe that Mary told Lucia that the 3rd secret be revealed in 1960, what gives??

If there was an interregnum during 1960 would that have prevented Sister Lucy revealing something?

Is it a dogma that Sister Lucy was to reveal something in 1960?

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #7 on:** December 09, 2010, 08:28:07 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: Belloc
Quote from: Roman Catholic
Those may have been genuine apparitions that are worthy of approval by legitimate Catholic Church authorities.

But I do not care about an approval by a Novus Ordo bishop.

Yes, the bishop gave his approval, but does Our Lady give her approval to the bishop and the New Religion that Bishop Ricken belongs to and presides over in his diocese?

Is The Approver an approved approver?

Mary told Sr. Lucia to reveal teh 3rd secret in 1960

questions
did Mary not know that there would be a 2 yr vacant seat when she asked the 3rd secret revealed in 1960?
Did Mary think Siri would reveal the secret?
DId Mary know that Siri steppeddown, supposedly?
Did the vacant seat thing surprise Mary?

If we then believe that Mary told Lucia that the 3rd secret be revealed in 1960, what gives??

If there was an interregnum during 1960 would that have prevented Sister Lucy revealing something?

Is it a dogma that Sister Lucy was to reveal something in 1960?

Back on subject, do you accept Novus Ordo Bishops' approvals of apparitions?

Belloc · « **Reply #8 on:** December 09, 2010, 10:12:27 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: Belloc
Quote from: Roman Catholic
Those may have been genuine apparitions that are worthy of approval by legitimate Catholic Church authorities.

But I do not care about an approval by a Novus Ordo bishop.

Yes, the bishop gave his approval, but does Our Lady give her approval to the bishop and the New Religion that Bishop Ricken belongs to and presides over in his diocese?

Is The Approver an approved approver?

Mary told Sr. Lucia to reveal teh 3rd secret in 1960

questions
did Mary not know that there would be a 2 yr vacant seat when she asked the 3rd secret revealed in 1960?
Did Mary think Siri would reveal the secret?
DId Mary know that Siri steppeddown, supposedly?
Did the vacant seat thing surprise Mary?

If we then believe that Mary told Lucia that the 3rd secret be revealed in 1960, what gives??

If there was an interregnum during 1960 would that have prevented Sister Lucy revealing something?

Is it a dogma that Sister Lucy was to reveal something in 1960?

was the revealtion not to be by the Pope? if not, then who was to do the revealing?

Belloc · « **Reply #9 on:** December 09, 2010, 10:20:15 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: Roman Catholic
Quote from: Belloc
Quote from: Roman Catholic
Those may have been genuine apparitions that are worthy of approval by legitimate Catholic Church authorities.

But I do not care about an approval by a Novus Ordo bishop.

Yes, the bishop gave his approval, but does Our Lady give her approval to the bishop and the New Religion that Bishop Ricken belongs to and presides over in his diocese?

Is The Approver an approved approver?

Mary told Sr. Lucia to reveal teh 3rd secret in 1960

questions
did Mary not know that there would be a 2 yr vacant seat when she asked the 3rd secret revealed in 1960?
Did Mary think Siri would reveal the secret?
DId Mary know that Siri steppeddown, supposedly?
Did the vacant seat thing surprise Mary?

If we then believe that Mary told Lucia that the 3rd secret be revealed in 1960, what gives??

If there was an interregnum during 1960 would that have prevented Sister Lucy revealing something?

Is it a dogma that Sister Lucy was to reveal something in 1960?

Back on subject, do you accept Novus Ordo Bishops' approvals of apparitions?

since you objected, the question is to you-you would have to prove that said Bishop is not a validly ordained and acting bishop..if you can, then yes, he would have NO authority at all, but if he is validly ordained clergyand validly installed Bishop......whether he says the NO or not, is he a valid Bishop???

you assume that every NO clergymen has willing left the Church, yet many are as confused as laity, hence-unlike Luther,et all that willingly left AND were formally excommunicate-this fellow may have jurisdiction......did all Bishops installed prior to 1958 immediately lose jurisdiaction in 1958?

the issue is far more muddled then the simplistic explanations often times offered.....

but again, you brought up the charge that this Bishop is indeed not a Bishop and since you are laity, as am I and lacking any official authority, the burden is on you! Weare not Prots, to thump a docuмent or two and declare someone not in authority....though some SV act like a Prot in their own personal "I think, so therefore, it is" ways.....

prove this fellow is NOT a legit Bishop, then lets proceed....

(of record, I have doubts about the whole apparition in rading thelink,etc, based on info provided)

Belloc · « **Reply #10 on:** December 09, 2010, 10:31:47 AM »

Ricken was ordained to priesthood by Bishop Arthur Nicholas Tafoya

Tafoya was ordained a priest in 1962, the Archbishop at that time was James Peter Davis, made a Bishop prior to 1958, actually, by Pius XII. Tafoya was later appointed Bishop in 1980 by JP2
Tafoya of note condemend Iraq "war':
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/peace/tafoya.shtml

so, there is a brief sketch, one would have to prove beyond any reasonable doubtthat JP2 and/or B16 are no legit Popes and nor arethey legit Bishops to disallow them to elevatea man to priest hood and/or Bishopric...

also, please someone tell me why, in this crisis, supplied jurisdiction would not apply.....it somehow applies to many others, SV and otherwise!

also, since WIlliamson,Fellay,et all in SSPX are not SV, would they, then, not be considered NO since they proclaim B16 as Popeand state they are in union with him?

would that then not make them part of NO structure?? for either one is or is not inuinion with B16, if not,then SV,etc.....so??

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #11 on:** December 09, 2010, 07:07:22 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

you assume that every NO clergymen has willing left the Church

Quote

You assume that I assume that. You don't know what I assume or what I do not assume.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #12 on:** December 09, 2010, 07:08:51 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

one would have to prove beyond any reasonable doubtthat JP2 and/or B16 are no legit Popes and nor arethey legit Bishops to disallow them to elevatea man to priest hood and/or Bishopric...

Wrong, what if one or both were valid but used an invalid rite?

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #13 on:** December 09, 2010, 07:14:54 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

but again, you brought up the charge that this Bishop is indeed not a Bishop

prove this fellow is NOT a legit Bishop, then lets proceed....

Quote

You are making too many assumptions.

I DID NOT up the charge that this Bishop is indeed not a Bishop.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #14 on:** December 09, 2010, 07:25:45 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

also, since WIlliamson,Fellay,et all in SSPX are not SV, would they, then, not be considered NO since they proclaim B16 as Popeand state they are in union with him?

would that then not make them part of NO structure?? for either one is or is not inuinion with B16, if not,then SV,etc.....so??

Now they are formally part the church Ratzi is head of aren't they? They are dissenters but they are in union are they not?

What were they before Ratzi lifted the ex's???

They might have said they were in communion with the V2 popes and church, but were they?

They wanted to be, but if the pope does not want to be in communion with someone who wants to be in union, what is the situation? It is not determined solely by the desires of the excommunicated or by their advisors who argue against their pope saying they are right and he is wrong about the validity of the excommunication.

When a legit authority excommunicates, the excommunicated are not in union, whether they want to be or not.