Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: 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
-
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?
-
Is The Approver an approved approver?
:laugh2:
-
Is The Approver an approved approver?
:laugh2:
:wink:
-
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??
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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 docuŠ¼ent 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)
-
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??
-
you assume that every NO clergymen has willing left the Church
You assume that I assume that. You don't know what I assume or what I do not assume.
-
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?
-
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....
You are making too many assumptions.
I DID NOT up the charge that this Bishop is indeed not a Bishop.
-
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.
-
(of record, I have doubts about the whole apparition in rading thelink,etc, based on info provided)
Ho dare you doubt the decision of a valid bishop with authority! Are you going to go against his decision like a Prot and make your own mind up? :wink:
-
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?
Is your belief in that detail based on a dogma that all Catholics must hold? Are Catholics bound to believe that a valid pope was supposed to reveal a secret in 1960?
If you think so, prove it.
Btw, I did not say Roncalli was not a pope. Some sedes think he was not, some think he was.
Heck, the SpiritusSanctus member here, who is an SSPX-er, thinks J23 was a pope, but P6 was not, and Jp2 was, and B16 is.
-
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?
:laugh1:
My thoughts exactly. I've been out there, and I believe that Our Lady appeared there, but I don't need the Novus Ordo bishop here to tell me that it happened.
One thing I do have to credit the Novus Ordo bishop doing here, is being the only bishop last year to withhold the collection from the CCHD. So I guess he's not the worst, but he's Novus Ordo. I remember some saying about protestants not profiting from good works, et cetera.
-
I am having trouble believing all these Marion apparitions. I am suspicious of them and the motivations of the people who promote them. Look at the man who runs "spirit daily". He is always promoting the false Medujorie apparitions. He admitted to me in an email that it was a false apparition but he promoted it because of it's "good fruits". And because he gets paid to lead pilgrimages there.
I do not trust anyone who says they have a secret message from God, it just sounds like a big con job.
I accept the apparitions like Fatima or Lourdes where there was a miracle, and where there was traditional church approval. As for for the rest, I reject them
-
I am having trouble believing all these Marion apparitions. I am suspicious of them and the motivations of the people who promote them. Look at the man who runs "spirit daily". He is always promoting the false Medujorie apparitions. He admitted to me in an email that it was a false apparition but he promoted it because of it's "good fruits". And because he gets paid to lead pilgrimages there.
I do not trust anyone who says they have a secret message from God, it just sounds like a big con job.
I accept the apparitions like Fatima or Lourdes where there was a miracle, and where there was traditional church approval. As for for the rest, I reject them
I agree completely.
Are you able to post that email from the man who runs spirit daily?
-
No I deleted it. I should have saved it.
-
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.
It was on purpose. The 1960s were probably the worst decade the Church has ever experienced.
-
No I deleted it. I should have saved it.
Oh. Nevertheless what an astounding thing for him to admit!
-
SSPX recognizes it and its approval..
http://sspx.org/news/our_lady_of_good_help_apparition-12-28-10.htm
-
I am having trouble believing all these Marion apparitions. I am suspicious of them and the motivations of the people who promote them. Look at the man who runs "spirit daily". He is always promoting the false Medujorie apparitions. He admitted to me in an email that it was a false apparition but he promoted it because of it's "good fruits". And because he gets paid to lead pilgrimages there.
I do not trust anyone who says they have a secret message from God, it just sounds like a big con job.
I accept the apparitions like Fatima or Lourdes where there was a miracle, and where there was traditional church approval. As for for the rest, I reject them
It's true. Found it true when I asked the same question of him.
I have friends who read the garbage from this spirit daily pseudo catholic site and are great followers of Medjugorie who might be surprised to learn this. Disengenuous is the word of the day here!