St Faustina Warns us of Bergoglio's Heresies and Apostasy.
#51
(12-01-2019, 07:30 AM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote:
(12-01-2019, 01:04 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(12-01-2019, 12:52 AM)maso Wrote: May I differ from you in that I and a lot of other people think that Pope Francis was not canonical elected ?

Fine. Keep it in the Benevacantism thread where it belongs!
I am neither sede nor benevacantist.

Where's that thread? Can you give me a link to that thread, Jovan? I like to take another look at it. Maybe even stick my two cents in. Thanks.

Sorry if I cam across sharply. Certain people ARE Benevacantists and keep trying to sneak the topic into other threads.

https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showth...?tid=84220
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • JacafamalaRedux
Reply
#52
No problem Chief
(12-01-2019, 05:47 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(12-01-2019, 07:30 AM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote:
(12-01-2019, 01:04 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(12-01-2019, 12:52 AM)maso Wrote: May I differ from you in that I and a lot of other people think that Pope Francis was not canonical elected ?

Fine. Keep it in the Benevacantism thread where it belongs!
I am neither sede nor benevacantist.

Where's that thread? Can you give me a link to that thread, Jovan? I like to take another look at it. Maybe even stick my two cents in. Thanks.

Sorry if I cam across sharply. Certain people ARE Benevacantists and keep trying to sneak the topic into other threads.

https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showth...?tid=84220

Sent from my SM-S337TL using Tapatalk
"Not only are we all in the same boat, but we are all seasick.” --G.K. Chesterton
Reply
#53
(12-01-2019, 01:25 PM)maso Wrote: (1 Thessalonians 5:20)
…"Do not extinguish the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt, but test all things. Hold fast to what is good".

Scripture is not to be interpreted by us, but the Church. Likewise, what constitutes actual prophecy is also to be judged by the Church, not us.

Just because someone says something that we like and seems to regard a future event or thing does make this "prophecy". It is for the Church to determine whether this is the case or not.

Also, since the Church teaches that public revelation (i.e. everything which is necessary for our salvation) was revealed at least implicitly by the time of St John's death, everything after this point will be at best Private Revelations and prophecy. It will bind only those to whom God has spoken directly, and the Church will, at best, only assert that some private revelation or prophecy is worthy of belief.

So what constitutes "prophecy" is what the Church tells us is so, not merely whatever we like.

This was the point of my comments about Nostradamus. If we are not to despise prophecy, then we should accept every bizarre idea that the New Agers take from him as well.

(12-01-2019, 01:25 PM)maso Wrote: It is too easy to dismiss a prophecy, labelled "fake" forever by the advanced exegetic study of pundits.

It is just as easy to make an unsupported claim of "prophecy". Recall from your own quote (out of a non-Catholic version of Scripture, I note), that we are to "test" prophecy, which means to demand it be demonstrated to be reliable, authentic and orthodox.

The claimant has the burden of proof. That something claims to be prophecy is the first claim that needs to be proven. Until it is established, skepticism is not only reasonable, but necessary. This "prophecy" of St Francis seems to have some major problems with it.

(12-01-2019, 01:25 PM)maso Wrote: I am not of the opinion that the prophecies ended when Jesus died on the Cross and resurrected. We got many prophets and prophecies during these last two millenaries and their number has increased since we are getting closer to the end times.

We've been in the "end times" since the Ascension of Our Lord. It's not just now.

If you mean that private revelations, apparitions and inspired saying have continued as an aid to the practice of the Christian Faith, okay. That clearly has happened, but again, these are private helps, not matters of public revelation binding on all.

If you mean that the public revelation of the Church has continued to grow, that's heresy.

(12-01-2019, 01:25 PM)maso Wrote: How many prophecies in the biblical times were forwarded through mouths and ears for generations until they were engraved in the marble in the same state as we can read them when they were written? During these oral lapses who knows how many times  they were twisted, shortened, lengthened or amended with the aim to match their actual times ? Should this worry anyone?

If the Spirit eventually delivered us as they are, staying now immutable in the Scripture this was for our spiritual enlightment.

No, because the Church has assured us of their authenticity using the authority it has to bind us. Is the Book of Isaias exactly as he wrote it? No, but the Church has infallibly determined that what we have in the Latin Vulgate is substantially the same, and therefore communicates the same inspired ideas that God wanted Isaias to communicate.

The authority of God, given to the Church, has assured us of the reliability of Scriptural prophecy.

The reliability of Scripture is not because the Holy Spirit has written it and given it to us (as if we could determine this by our own rule), but that the Church has certified that the Holy Spirit has provided us this Scripture. It is the same Church that teaches us what it actually means as well.

This is not the case with the "prophecy" being discussed here. The Church has is no way been involved, and there is even good reason to think that this "prophecy" is not from the claimed author.

(12-01-2019, 01:25 PM)maso Wrote: In the same immutable way, in 1917 we got the Fatima prophecies through Sr Lucy's mouth (or pen).

Here is clearly where you make a misstep.

Fatima is certainly true, and rejecting it would be stupid, because it has been demonstrated by miracles and the Church has entered in and determined it worthy of belief and of supernatural origin. Nevertheless, it is not "infallible true" or comparable to Scriptural prophecy.

Scriptural prophecy is part of the deposit of Faith, and as an inspired part of Scripture, infallibly true. Reject it, and one rejects the Faith.

Fatima is not infallibly true. Nothing from it is absolutely necessary for our salvation. At best it would be morally necessary for our salvation given present conditions, and so to reject it would be stupid and presumptious and would endanger our salvation, but would not be a rejection of the Faith.

(12-01-2019, 01:25 PM)maso Wrote: as been completely realized"
Saint Francis' prophecy makes no exception. We got it in latin by the early 17h c. through the book of Br Wadding, accurately translated and published in vernacular by the end of the 19th c. and probably there isn't nor will be any other version challenging it. Our duty is to test this prophecy according to the tenets of our Faith, not to discard it.

We are testing it, and it does not pass that test.

We have a version from Luke Wadding exactly 400 years after St Francis' death, which is the first time it is included in any compilation of Franciscan sayings. We know, however that Wadding's work was unscrupulous, and simply gathered what he could that had any relation to St Francis. Thus we cannot rely on the fact of inclusion as proof of authenticity without corroborating evidence.

The 19th century translation is a translation.

We have provided to us a Franciscan expert on the works of St Francis who calls into question and provides solid objections to the authenticity of Wadding's inclusion of the work.

If we look at the 1906 edition (not 1912 as I previously thought) of Wadding's work, we see that this prophecy was removed as spurious. The introduction to that edition (provided in full here) includes :

Quote:Wadding’s edition of the Opuscula differs mainly from all preceding collections in this, that whereas the latter contained only those pieces which as regards both matter and form were the handiwork of St. Francis, Wadding felt justified in including among St. Francis’ writings many dicta of the Saint found in the early Legends.

... Thus it comes to pass that in Wadding’s edition, side by side with the undisputed writings of St. Francis, we find doubtful, even spurious, extracts from different sources attributed to the Seraphic Father. It must ever remain a matter of regret that Wadding, instead of following the oldest MSS. that he had at hand, was content to transcribe the incomplete and often interpolated parts of them he found in second-hand compilations, like that of Mark of Lisbon. His work from our standpoint is vitiated by imperfect research and unreliable criticism.

So, well before people were going to questions the applicability of this "prophecy" to the sitting Pope, and well before there was even a hint of some horrific problem in the Papacy, the "prophecy" was rejected by scholars after plentiful testing, and historical criticism.

So the "prophecy" has been tested. It failed.

Retesting it because it agrees with our pet theories is not only silly, it clearly shows bad will and an effort to start with a conclusion, and then gather proof for it, rather than studying the matter and deducing a conclusion from it.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Fionnchu, jovan66102
Reply
#54
This thread is still going on? I thought my Make Me a Channel of Your Peace link would bring all of this to a beautiful, bittersweet conclusion. Alas...
[-] The following 2 users Like piscis's post:
  • Fionnchu, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#55
(12-03-2019, 01:04 AM)piscis Wrote: This thread is still going on? I thought my Make Me a Channel of Your Peace link would bring all of this to a beautiful, bittersweet conclusion. Alas...

Well, now that the St Louis Jesuits gave their farewell concert, you'd think, right....?
The deeds you do may be the only sermon some people may hear today (Francis of Assisi); Win an argument, lose a soul (Fulton Sheen)
[-] The following 3 users Like Fionnchu's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae, piscis
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)