Proof that Medjugorje Visionaries are Frauds
(11-14-2010, 11:36 PM)paragon Wrote: Greg, I said I don't trust Novus Ordo priests nor SSPX, so he's begun to suspect that I'm some species of schismatic.

Only going by what you've posted, my friend.  "Novus Ordo" priests - that rules out about 95% of the hierarchy.  Adding SSPX rules out the vast majority of those in irregular status who say TLM.  Whom does that leave?  Perhaps those priests in full communion who say only TLM, such as my ICK priest?  Or did you mean some other group in irregular canonical status?  Can one ask for clarification on something you post publicly here?  Like I said, it's an interesting take.  (I admit I assumed you were implying you trusted some group in even less regular status than the SSPX, but maybe that's not the case.  In that case, it would help all understand you if you clarified.)

Holding an opinion contrary to the Church regarding a private revelation is also interesting to me.  The Church is the final and really only arbiter of these things - going by private interpretation is an absolute sure-fire way to fall into error since some of the condemned ones have had quite a bit of convincing evidence and fooled many people.

That reminds me: contrary to the assertion of the Medjugorje proponent who arrived here and re-started this dead thread, Medjugorje has been condemned by the Church: both local bishops presiding over the diocese since the events began have condemned it in the strongest possible terms.  The local bishop is the Church, unless and until he is overruled by a higher authority.
(11-12-2010, 08:13 PM)Baskerville Wrote: [? :villagepeeps:


edit: video has been removed
(11-14-2010, 10:30 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: Not having an opinion regarding belief and expressly contradicting the judgment of the Church are not the same thing.  

True, but it depends what kind of judgment it is.  Approval of private revelations is way down on the list of things not to contradict because they don't go to the Catholic Faith.

Quote:There are two kinds of revelations: (1) universal revelations, which are contained in the Bible or in the depositum of Apostolic tradition transmitted by the Church. These ended with the preaching of the Apostles and must be believed by all; (2) particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians (see CONTEMPLATION). When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them. Speaking of such revelations as (e.g.) those of St. Hildegard (approved in part by Eugenius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St. Catherine of Siena (by Gregory XI) Benedict XIV says: "It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief)" (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II).

The problem is not telling people "Don't believe it because it's fake" but "you cannot believe it because it is sinful" (or contrawise telling people "you must believe it because the Church approved it").  The reason is because the Church doesn't even say they are true, just that they do no harm and may do some good.
(11-14-2010, 10:30 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(11-14-2010, 10:08 PM)ggreg Wrote: He's allowed to doubt Akita.  The Church only says it is worthy of belief not that you have to believe it.

What he needs to be cautious of is making his mind up based on spurious claims on some nutter's website rather than a published attempt to establish the facts of what happened.

When a book is written there are a lot more checks and balances.  Either Salbato got that information from a published source or he just made it up.  If it is in a published source then SHOW ME.

Not having an opinion regarding belief and expressly contradicting the judgment of the Church are not the same thing. 

I agree essentially regarding both Salbato and Conte, FWIW.  I've corresponded with the latter regarding his prophecy - he's clearly completely un-Catholic in his insistence on publishing private interpretations of prophecy including numerology. 

From what I understand you're at liberty to think the Church is "wrong" on these matters of private revelation.  All the Church says is that there is nothing wrong in an apparition that should give you reason to NOT believe it.  But that does not discount it entirely from being a fraud, simply that the Church does not have any evidence to say it is a fraud.  They judge it to be legit, but they allow for the fact that it might not be.

With Fatima, however, I would take issue with a Catholic who disbelieved it and think them a awkward nutter.  Because when 70,000 people see the Sun dance and fall towards the earth, and that is documented in a secular newspaper, then basic common sense should tell you that God wants you to wake up, believe and listen to that particular message.  After all, part of public revelation is that we are to watch and remain observant to the signs of the times and a public miracle of that magnitude does STRONGLY suggest that Fatima is one of those signs of the times.  Rejecting Fatima is, in my opinion, being wilfully blind.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)