Why did God choose Mary, and why did she not get permission from the authorities in her day to believe what she saw and heard from Gabriel.
Harper: The most important thing to remember is that we are not required to affirm any private revelation at all. So why are you getting so riled up about people who simply are doing what the Church allows? If you are offended by such discussion that includes that permission then follow your own conscience. No one is telling you that you must "affirm" anything. But they don't have to "affirm" you either!!
It's a fair question that many TLIG readers ask but it betrays a misunderstanding of the role of the Pope. He is not a dictator who can do what he wants. He can only attempt to keep the various dicasteries working together as best he can but cannot, in practice, intervene unless he sees something serious going wrong. This reminds me of the situation with Pope John Paul II who was strongly supportive of Medjugoje but only became involved when he saw an increasing movement to try and block Catholics from going there. Then he got his personal spokesman and also the CDF secretary (Bertone) to intervene to explicitly to confirm that Catholics were free to go there.
Private revelation cannot add to the deposit of the faith and is not necessary to salvation. Wow. Well what do you think would happen if we said goodbye to the Rosary (Our Lady via St Dominic), Devotion & enthronement to the Sacred Heart (Our Lord via St Margaret Marie @ Paray le Monial), First Friday devotions (Our Lord via Sr Margaret Marie), First Saturday devotions (@ Fatima), prayers of reparations such as prayers to the Holy Face (@ St Marie of St Peter), Mercy Chaplet (St Faustina), and this list could go on and on. There are so many devotions and prayers that have come through apparitions (including to Saints & mystics), I think that if we were to have done away with them all, the Church would have imploded a long, long time ago. I am always so astounded when I hear people say that private revelations are not necessary to salvation. So why has Heaven intervened so much since Christ rose at the Ascension? Because they have nothing better to do? I can only think that it takes a hard heart and a rather inflated ego to believe that apparitions haven't been pivotal to man's salvation. How many corpses coming back to life does it take to prove that through apparitions, Our Lord & Our Lady are necessary to salvation.
By corpses, I mean people who were dead & decaying spiritually who are brought back to life through the fire of the Holy Spirit, which has happened too often to count through miracles related to apparitions.
Speaking of the necessity of apparitions for salvation, what do you suppose Latin America would be like today if Our Lady of Guadalupe had not appeared? Is it not through that apparition that millions of natives converted in Mexico, natives that the Church was having a very hard time converting at the time?
David, That is just not true I am afraid. Why then did he as Pope issue Summorum Pontificum? Popes issue moto proprios whenever it pleases them. He can do whatever he wants in terms of governing the Church. Even if you were right, you said he could intervene only when seeing something seriously wrong. Do I take that to mean then that he, you or both didnt see the suposedly unjust treatement by Cardinal Lavada as something worth correcting? I think you know very well why he dint intervene; as popes meet with the CDF prefect every week, you can be almost 100% sure that Lavada was acting on the Pope's instructions, or at least the Pope gave his approval for Lavada to go ahead with the letter.
I have no idea why God chose Mary, it's above my pay grade! The Mystery of the Incarnation, however, is separable from the duty of faithful Catholics today to follow the guidance of their bishop, in union with the Pope, on matters of faith, morals and discipline.
Private revelation not being necessary for salvation is discussed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. One cannot believe in a private revelation/assent to it with Catholic and divine faith. One can, however, give a private revelation human assent.
Back to work. Will check in tomorrow for the latest anathema from David. I'd suggest this one from the movie Becket:
Where would the Church be if Saul had consulted the authorities about the locution he received, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
I think we have to accept the Church's Authority in such matters, for if the Church has no authority, who has? But I think we have not heard the last of Lippa by a long shot. Similiarly if the Church ruled against Medugorje I would be happy to accept it. Though this Lippa thing I have to say , the way it was handled was weird, bizarre. But I accept it, if that's what they want.
Thought I would post todays reading- seemed applicable to this and a couple of the other threads that seemed to be heating up............................... Reading 1 2 Tm 2:8-15 Beloved: Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, a descendant of David: such is my Gospel, for which I am suffering, even to the point of chains, like a criminal. But the word of God is not chained. Therefore, I bear with everything for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, together with eternal glory. This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us. If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. Remind people of these things and charge them before God to stop disputing about words. This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen. Be eager to present yourself as acceptable to God, a workman who causes no disgrace, imparting the word of truth without deviation.
Church rulings on private revelations must be obeyed, but need not necessarily be believed. (Imagine where we'd be if every Catholic simply decided to stop believing in St. Faustina's revelations simply because the CDF -- then called the Holy Office -- condemned them). If you deny that and instead insist that these CDF rulings somehow comprise actual Magisterium (that is to say; permanent and binding on conscience), then perhaps you should join this gentlemen in his crusade against the Divine Mercy Image and Divine Mercy Chaplet: http://www.novusordowatch.org/divine-mercy.pdf By "obeyed" I mean: If the Church says stop publicly promoting a given apparition, then stop publicly promoting it we must. But it does not follow that we must believe it false. It simply means that, if we remain convinced of its authenticity, we are called to prayer and perhaps legitimate private work on it (e.g. compiling a theological defense of it to submit to the Church). As private revelations are not matters of Catholic Faith, that also means, as a simple consequence, that juridical rulings on them are also not matters of Catholic Faith. I don't know anything about the Lipa apparitions or Vassula; I just wanted to make sure that the basic principles were laid down here.
As I have already said, nobody contests the canonical validity of the CDF decree regarding Lipa, which is clearly binding. However, this is all looking rather more messy than some appear to think, not least because of all the international press articles that appeared (in absolute good faith, as nobody foresaw the CDF's move) both after and prior to Archbishop Arguelles September 2015 approval of the apparitions as 'worthy of belief'. It is certainly extraordinary that Lipa appears to be the first apparition in history that was simultaneously 'approved' and declared 'not supernatural' by the Church, given that the CDF decision is reported as having taken place in December 2015, but not communicated for six months. Particularly intriguing are the references in this material - which is not about to disappear from public view, I don't think - both to Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI, which can hardly be construed as negative. A good example is French journal La Croix, which in a September 15, 2015 article announcing the news published a photograph of Pope Francis crossing himself in front of a replica of the Lipa statue of Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces on his visit to Tacloban in the Philippines in January 2015. Another, earlier example is an article on the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines website dated May 20, 2015 which relates details of the Filipino Bishops' ad limina visit to Rome in 2011 (during which a life-size replica of the Lipa statue was publicly displayed in the Wednesday General Audience in the Paul VI Audience Hall). The article for example states that 'Digos Bishop Guillermo V. Afable quoted then Pope Benedict XVI as happily exclaiming “La Madonna La Madonnina! La dolcissima Madonnina!” upon receiving a small replica image of the Mediatrix the Filipino prelate presented to him during the CBCP’s Ad Limina visit on March 3, 2011.' http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=56588 The latest CDF decree specifically appeals to Pontifical authority as the basis for the overruling of Archbishop Arguelles' September 2015 declaration. Which Pope are they referring to? The list of unanswered questions in this whole case is growing.
The original of Fr Lorenzo Guerrero's Affidavit can be seen in this 1990s documentary film on Lipa made by June Keithley Castro The portion of the film dealing specifically with the 1951 investigation and the question of possible coercion of the Bishops involved begins at 14:50. Particularly noteworthy is the commentary at 20:39: 'A reliable source testifies that Bishop Patrick Shanley of Isabela was reportedly so disgusted by the conduct of the investigation and the manner in which certain church officials influenced the outcome of the verdict [that] in a fit of anger he denounced the proceedings and revealed that the bishops had been forced to sign the verdict by the Papal Nuncio upon the pain of excommunication' Judge for yourselves.
