Discussion in 'Spirit Daily and Spirit Digest' started by Catherine L, Sep 19, 2020.
Beautiful post, Andre, it brought tears to my heart your depiction of Our Mother.
The image does nothing to advance the cause for the Church to declare the 5th Marian dogma. Quite the contrary. Similarly with the message. Our Lady urging the faithful to put pressure on Bishops to make a declaration honouring her simply doesn't fit with what we know of her humility.
The image is quite modernist in appearance. It brings to mind Fr. James Martin likening the picture of the scantily clad butch athlete to Our Lady of Guadalupe. That image is just a 1950's version of what the likes of Fr. Martin are promoting now - replacement for the woman who "Once was Mary".
Both the image and the message are a hindrance rather than a help. That "Once was Mary" woman is the true co-redemptrix. She was Mary at the annunciation, at the nativity, at the crucifixion, at Pentecost. And she will always be Mary, the perfect daughter, spouse and mother.
Indeed, it is good this is being corrected. As I said in my comment about this on the other thread (Thanks, Booklady!), there was a lot not right with that report.
But, reading it made me realize how QUICK people are to believe the first thing they read or watch on a video and, just as quickly, take a side. There’s something inherently wrong in this and I think I’m seeing more clearly now just how MUCH the internet serves as a catalyst to rash responsiveness.
Then, I’m reading the comments above about some people’s take on the image. You are free to have an opinion, of course. But, this has been studied by experts who have shown that this is theologically sound. But that just doesn’t seem to matter to some. I see this type of thinking process trending here more and more.
The correction admits the new information:
“The scan of the CDF document simply says that the Vatican position is unchanged since May 25, 1974: non constat de supernaturalitate. ”
This is an official change from the “approved” apparition status - which apparently it never had.
Who are you referring to when you are surprised how quick people are to believe the first things they read?
I think that I'm the person being referred to. My dislike of the image has nothing to do with the recent report. My opinion hasn't changed since the first time I saw the image.
It was from the other thread. That’s what I was referring to. I didn’t focus on who specifically said it as it was more than one person commenting as if they thought it was a done deal. I never meant you could not have your own thoughts or feelings on the image. That’s entirely yours alone. So, I was trying to address two separate issues. Also, I’m quite tired right now and it was probably not the best time to post to comment.
A thousand likes for your post Andree.
I love it when a Catholic stands up and has the guts to tell it like it is. You are a true faithful servant of God.
We have been told in numerous apparitions that Bishop will be against Bishop, Cardinal against Cardinal. So as far as I can see, when a forum member does not like one apparition or another, they can simply scout around for a Bishop or a Cardinal who supports their particular beliefs. Not difficult at a time when the Bishops and Cardinals can't agree among themselves. And this gets utterly tiresome and boring to me. That is my little rant.
I come across lots of pictures of Blessed Mother that I find horrible, in some of them she looks like she is scowling, in others she looks like a monster, so I don't judge Blessed Mother by some artists depiction of her. My very favourite picture is Our Lady of Guadalupe, it has something exceptional in it that I can not articulate.
There are other beautiful pictures of course. But I would not judge the meaning of the picture used from Amsterdam. And I certainly would not judge the statue made by a Japanese sculpture with the Lady looking like a Japanese version of our Lady. That would simply be unfair. There are also images of Our Lady with an African looking Blessed Mother, why not we have pictures of Blessed Mother looking like a European.
We the people are the ones that need to be on our knees before the Cross. Blessed Mother was sinless and never caused God any suffering. We bring our Heavenly Mother to her knees by our sinfulness and lack of charity. We should be ashamed of ourselves, and stop allowing these hierarchy who are in a spiritual battle for the soul of the Church to get under our skin. Sorry, more ranting from Julia.
Thank you for expressing your thoughts here. I agree.
Is that the Peter Bannister who, at the beginning of the Bergoglian pontificate, wrote 'No False Prophet', a hagiography of Pope Francis? He might have been genuinely deceived, but it shows him as not having any special insight.
I think I must trust the decisions of the Church unless there are irrefutable reasons not to do so. Obviously, there have been multiple scandals with Pope Francis himself, but the CDF continues to be a source of stability. It seems to have kicked for touch this time, neither approving nor condemning.
Personally, I am a bit wary of a creature, no matter how holy, being assigned associate powers that can only be divine. Our Lady's holiness, no matter how great, is a combination of her unique creation by God, combined with her will to obey. Our Lady can not redeem us-only God can do that. Is assigning her partnership in this role going a little too far? I hope to be saved by Christ-I ask Our Lady to beseech Him for this purpose; I would never ask Our Lady to save me.
Padraig, I appreciate (and 'liked') what you said, particularly in the context of Pope Francis and that woman with the in-our-faces perversion agenda, but I think we must be wary of throwing the baby out with the Bergoglian bath-water. There are still some Catholics in the Vatican.
Colossians 1:24: "[I, Paul,] now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church”. If Paul could fill up what was behind, so could the Blessed Virgin Mary even more for Christ was flesh of her flesh and there was a unique union between her Immaculate Heart and His Sacred Heart. Co-redemptrix does not mean equal. It only means 'with'the redeemer. She was the vessel of the Incarnation and therefore is in a unique relationship with Christ and in a unique position to participate with and under her divine son in the work of human redemption.
Yes, Garabandal. This was given mystically. I feel your interpretation is sound.
As, I said, 'wary'. I'm a good bit less wary, now.
However, it would be very important, in the event of an official declaration of this dogma, that this be understood by all. There is a feminist strain in the Church that would jump at a notion of a 'goddess'.
In the linked video from the Fatima Center, the good Father from Kentucky (most of his talks are A++) brings out fantastic correlations using the very image that has been under scrutiny in this post. It is worth a watch if you have the time.
He is the Peter Bannister who was once a member of Mother of God, and very helpful here in translating in Spanish, Italian French, and I can't remember what other languages. I believe he wrote the book you quote about Pope Francis. He is now one of the four members who head Countdown to the Kingdom.
He left the forum after I described sodomites as ...well ...sodomites.
His brother is a sodomite and he wished me to refer to his sodoumite brother as, 'Gay'
I would not do so.
He left, offended/
Some added info re: the recent negative "statement" on Our Lady of All Nations:
‘Our Lady Of All Nations’
September 22, 2020 by sd
Said the good bishop (Punt who approved it) recently, when controversy flared anew, referring to his 2002 approval, “I asked some theologians and psychologists to again study all the available material. On their positive advice, and in my responsibility as local bishop, I then approved the apparitions as ‘in essence consisting of a supernatural origin.’ In a pastoral letter, I added that the approval does not imply a guarantee on each word or image, because the influence of the human factor always remains.”
In addition to that bishop’s opinion (which some have taken issue with, arguing that he had no right to reverse previous rulings), there is the fact — the supernatural fact — that the image of Mary, as portrayed by Ida — with that globe and Cross — inspired the sculpting of a second one at a convent in Akita, Japan, that ended up exuding tears on at least 101 occasions starting on a Fatima feast day in 1973.
And there was the fact that Our Lady — as presented by Ida over the course of nearly four decades — hit on a number of predictions, including prophecies of a struggle in the Church, which certainly ensued after Vatican II, and the death of Pius XII, specifically in October of 1958.
These were, to be sure, impressive “hits.”
Realism, Humanism. A new paganism — diabolical attacks no longer directed against nations so much as “the mind of man.”
A spiritual battle around the world — worse than a military one, she said, because “it is undermining mankind.”
Most recently, controversy has exploded over a European Catholic news site’s report that, on July 20, to use a translation of its words, “at the request of Cardinal Béchara Boutros Raï, Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), formerly called the ‘Holy Office,’ and clarified in a letter to the prelate the position of the Holy See regarding the visions of Ida Peerdeman.
“Although the Madonna appearances to Ida Peerdeman has, for some, many similarities with the Virgin appearing to Catherine Labouré in 1830 (globe under the feet, rays of light emanating from the hands turned downwards), the former Holy Office has confirmed a notification signed in 1974 which ‘considers that it is not opportune to contribute to the dissemination of the veneration of Mary as ‘Lady of All Peoples.’”
Supporters of Ida respond, as did one, “in the scan of the CDF letter, it nowhere appears that the apparitions to Ida Peerdeman have been declared ‘false.’ It seems that [a European reporter named David Murgia] over-reacted and has caused a serious misunderstanding by including the word ‘false’ in quotation marks at the top of his blog article. This was then simply repeated in French on [a Catholic outlet called] Aleteia (where, additionally, a portion of the CDF letter was mis-translated).
“In other words, it is clear that this does represent a refusal by the CDF to acknowledge the 2002 decision of Bishop Punt,” Peter Bannister from Cluny, France, wrote us. “This is certainly a major blow to supporters of the campaign for the Fifth Marian Dogma (including myself). However, the CDF’s letter to Cardinal Rai does not constitute a constat de non supernaturalitate [confirmed to be non-supernatural] and there is no reference to a new inquiry or new data since 2005. This effectively means that the case of Ida Peerdeman cannot logically be regarded as closed.”
All Christians needed to unite, said Ida, because the gate was open and a wolf was at the door.
I'm taking it for granted that the Vatican no, no on this is at best problematical. If the Vatican had condemned it this would shut me up.
So since I take it I am not shut up, I came across this old piece by Michael Voris. I didn't know he took an interest in such things.
I think the messages are “worrisome” to some in the Vatican, if you know what I mean. I think Our Lady of All Nations is vindicating Herself in this apparition more and more each day. Satan is having a hissy fit. Ave Maria!
Separate names with a comma.