Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
General Catholic Discussion / Re: ¨Bishop in White¨
« Last post by PerEvangelicaDicta on Today at 02:46:16 PM »
Supreme dulia is rightfully due Our Holy Mother.  It is sweet, endearing, elevates the soul to contemplate upon the words that visionaries convey from Her. (Pronoun caps to distinguish) 

The caveat is if She is indeed saying these words.  A Church stamp of credible does not = infallible, but worthy of "pious credence".  That's quite different from my lifelong experience with traditional and novus ordo Catholics on the topic of apparitions. From Fatima and Lourdes to Mary's-face-on-toast (one extreme to the other), we tend to place private revelations at the same level as the sacraments. Heck, I remember all the Catholics who gathered every day at a bank in St. Petersburg, FL at an image of what they said was OL who appeared on a glass window.  I saw it first hand.  There are many examples of the confusion of Catholics re: Marian apparitions.  Are Catholics now predisposed to belief, approved or not?  Is this a relatively recent thing; i.e., last 100-150 years?  Look at the good +W, and the seer who has his ear (not to mention - I hate to say because I greatly respect him - his promotion of a questionable apparition and a particular very controversial book that was condemned). 

Fwiw, I pushed back with some parishioners about the bank 'apparition' and you'd think I renounced the faith - not unlike Gerard, whose Catholicity is questioned for questioning, in an undercurrent.  In fairness, I know the cult of Fatima is much different than these other common visions and signs though.

We all understand Public Revelation is closed.  No apparition, no matter the designated gravitas, even Fatima, is part of the Deposit of the Faith, so it's wrong to insult those who have doubts about some. 

private revelations cannot correct or add anything essentially new to Public Revelation;

alleged revelations which propose to improve upon, correct or entirely supplant Public Revelation are rejected by the Church as inauthentic, regardless of the claims made for them.

If I'm not mistaken, Gerard, like many of us, revered OL of Fatima without question.  He submitted a very respectful communication to the Remnant, but was ignored.  Pride has nothing to do with it, he was looking for a discussion.  I'd even wager he may have been hoping for an explanation that would ease his concern.  I understand his argument and it's worthy of exploration.  For the most part, the back and forth here has been beneficial, but we have to guard against the attribution of ill will against those who raise good questions.  There are more than a few.  Please keep in mind that because you may recoil from concerns about Fatima's degree of authenticity (and truly, I understand why), the concerns are presented objectively, sans emotion.  And may even be correct.

Regardless, our focus is on Christ and the sacraments to save our souls. 
The Coffee Pot / Re: How Old Are You?
« Last post by Non Nobis on Today at 02:36:20 PM »
5'7", and recently lost 20lbs  :D .  What's left I'm not saying.
The Coffee Pot / Re: How Old Are You?
« Last post by Christina_S on Today at 02:27:25 PM »
5'7". 170 lbs. C'mon ladies, your turn. 8)
5'6". 160 lbs.  8) 8)
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Any Upside to Purgatory?
« Last post by Non Nobis on Today at 02:25:55 PM »
Makes me think.  We here could be like the souls in purgatory perfectly resigned to our suffering no matter how bad, in a state of peace, and even very happy.   They know for certain they are saved which brings them the most consolation.  But we can have something similar to that here, i.e. assurance of our salvation if we are practicing Catholics following the ten commandments.  And when I myself find myself not at peace in my own suffering, I have to admit my faith and prayer life is too weak.  If I can strengthen it, I'll have more assurance of eternal life.

But it is harder for us to be resigned than for the souls in purgatory.  We ARE sinful and weak, sometimes our nerves and minds are affected, and we don't clearly see the good of suffering.  Our felt lack of faith, resignation, and inability to pray, and our complaining, are permitted, and will be forgiven by God, or sometimes even excused, if He knows the true intention of our heart is obedience to Him. We should not be worried and scrupulous about our felt lack of peace.  Not feeling peace should not be taken (by ourselves or by others) as necessarily indicating that we are terrible people, or even much worse than others (as some scrupulous people may think, or people judging others). But yes, definitely strengthening our faith and prayer life will bring us more peace, and must be our goal.

Okay I think I just found the answer to my own question regarding whether or not he was doing these exorcisms without the local bishops approval, @50:50

The answer is he got permission from Rome.
General Information / Re: Giving advice in response to prayer requests
« Last post by Jayne on Today at 02:11:37 PM »
In addition --and while I understand the impulse to include one's own needs within someone else's petition --I think it's better for everyone (including any of us with that impulse) to respect the integrity of a single intention, and instead to open our own should we need similar prayers.

What do other people think about this issue?  I can see two sides to this.  There are advantages to keeping one thread for one poster's request.  On the other hand, there are times when it is helpful for people to know that they are not the only one struggling with a problem and that others also need prayer.
The Coffee Pot / Re: How Old Are You?
« Last post by MiserereDomine on Today at 01:59:07 PM »
5 foot 8 (173 cm)
155 lbs (70 kg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
General Information / Re: Giving advice in response to prayer requests
« Last post by Miriam_M on Today at 01:58:32 PM »
I would hope that self-policing is sufficient.  Maybe a reminder at the top of the Prayer Intentions forum (a Please Read Before Posting announcement) that discussion of the content of prayer intentions -- whether that discussion is sought by the OP prayer requester or by repliers-- belongs in one of several places, as typically befits:

Coffee Pot
Private Messages
Mary Garden
St Joseph Workbench
Family Life

It seems to me that the protocol can include contributors posting a link within that Prayer thread to an actual discussion thread being opened in one of those locations, for those interested.

In addition --and while I understand the impulse to include one's own needs within someone else's petition --I think it's better for everyone (including any of us with that impulse) to respect the integrity of a single intention, and instead to open our own should we need similar prayers.

When I pray for SD members (for example, at Mass) I pray for individuals (by user name or by real name, if I know that) who have opened PI threads or who have PM'ed me with their private needs.  I may pray for a bunch of you, but nevertheless, the intentions are remembered singly and pleaded for singly.
General Catholic Discussion / Re: ¨Bishop in White¨
« Last post by Pon de Replay on Today at 12:32:50 PM »
The worst scenario would be the apparent fulfillment of Fatima because of the inevitable "new apparitions" that will come and the "new instructions" in order to "extend" the period of peace.

This assumes that the new apparitions will 1.) be approved and 2.) be accompanied by wonders as convincing as the Miracle of the Sun.  If Fr. James Martin were to come out of the woodwork, as you've suggested, with a revelation from the Blessed Virgin Mary that the Church go full-on "LGBTQ," then we would have to assume that he would also get canonical approval and predict a supernatural phenomenon that converts atheists.  That would be something.  So far liberal Christianity seems bereft of miracles, though.  It would be like if Katharine Jefferts Schori were to one day levitate, bilocate, and cure cancer by her touch.  Not likely to happen.

If, however, you're worried about Francis happily approving liberal apparitions, then I agree that could be a danger.  But that would seem to be the least of your problems.  Your hypothetical situations are nothing compared to the fact that you already actually have so liberal a pope.  Sufficient unto the day is the liberalism thereof.
A toleration of evil to permit a greater good in this case has been allowed twice in 2,000 years in the case of communio in sacris to only 2 regions to avoid a great evil, not to permit it as an intrinsic good. In the case of St. Pius X that was a secret document he permitted to Shepititsky that only came to light after his death because St. Pius X realized it could be the cause of scandal if misunderstood by common people, which is proving itself true in this very thread.

You are equivocating on the meaning of "toleration".  If this is what you mean, then you can't really object to the Church (per impossibile) saying divorce and remarriage can be "tolerated" for the sake of the greater good of the children.  "Toleration" means prudently not acting to prevent an evil, if such action would result in a greater evil or in the prevention of greater good.  Toleration does not mean granting "permission" for others to do evil such that good may come of it.

Go read the history of that document, not the 5 second version you'll find online. Pius X realized it was a prudential decision and prudence can be argued as a matter of right and wrong, and has no intrinsic value unless you want to argue every prudential decision of a pope is a decree of infallbility and marks of acts intrinsic good and evil which is absurd.

And likewise we realize it was a prudential decision.  But if it is a prudential decision to permit it, then it is likewise a prudential decision to forbid it.

It's a fact the Church forbade interfaith communion for it's entire history up until Vatican II as a principle inextricably linked to sacrilege, indifferentism, and contrary to faith. 2 regional exceptions by means of prudence don't negate that.

Yes, they do, if you want to argue communicatio in sacris is intrinsically evil and that is why the Church forbade it.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10