Apparitions and Salvation

[Knightswhosayni]

“In cases which concern private revelations, it is better to believe than not to believe, for, if you believe, and it is proven true, you will be happy that you have believed, because our Holy Mother asked it. If you believe, and it should be proven false, you will receive all blessings as if it had been true, because you believed it to be true.”(Pope Urban VIII, 1623-44)

This is nonsensical!!

 

[Knightswhosayni]

Well, you’re making assumptions about what I even mean here. I never gave details. Its common knowledge J0hn Paull II apologized for the church’s behavior during Galileo’s trial. How long did the church take to reign in the scandals and errors happening with indulgences? How well did they teach this for it to get so far out of hand? They changed the way these events would be dealt with and taught about, they clarified it. I wasn’t referring to the myth that it was the real teaching, but even now people hand over money to say Masses? Why isn’t that free? Maybe I’m lacking info on that? Do you pay your friends to pray for you?? Of course not.
Relics, another example of abuses and misuse. Sure the church didn’t teach this as the “right” way, but if so many people in authority dont listen how do they not hold great responsibility?? How do they let things get so far out of hand repeatedly? Because it’s a sketchy business to begin with. They also stopped separating body parts after a while, because it’s hypocrisy to require everyone else’s bodies to stay in one piece while you butcher up Saintly ones. And, the Incorruptibles. It goes on and on. Lots of areas to lead people to put faith in things that dont matter and then fall into error.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Based on how the apparitions are treated, I can only assume the Church is not certain of them, and thus the term “worthy of belief” and not “true.”

I fully explained this (public vs private revelation) in my post above in the thread.

You’ve chosen to stick to your statement, rather than accepting the explanation given.

There’s no point in trying to discuss further as your mind is made up on the issue. You’ve concluded the Church somehow thinks these revelations aren’t true, rather than understanding the Vatican obviously thinks they are true but that they are not essential for people to accept in order to be good Catholics or achieve salvation. The latter is the correct statement.

As for “causing confusion”, the only confusion I’m seeing here is coming from people who have willfully chosen not to understand and/or not to accept the teaching authority of the Vatican.
They create their own confusion, unfortunately.

 

[whatistrue]

but even now people hand over money to say Masses? Why isn’t that free?

In some parts of the world, that is the only money the priests get under normal circumstances. And the “fee” is purely voluntary in the US at least.

And you absolutely stated in so many words that the Church “approved of” the bit about indulgences and relic selling, so how am I assuming anything?

 

[Knightswhosayni]

If it gets to that point, that scandal causes schism, you’re saying that wasn’t a huge error on the church authority? It shows a great level of irresponsibility

 

[Knightswhosayni]

I didn’t say they approved in the strictest sense of the word, but I would say the irresponsibility lead to many people falling into sin. So, Id that degree of mistake is pretty awful. Wasnt it more than a couple of disobedient priests or bishops?History repeats with the sex scandal, because authority and rules overruled common sense. Yes, if you dont do enough, it’s called the sin of omission. The church seems to be able to excuse their faults to a ridiculous degree that’s not allotted to the laity. Who’s reminding them to do better? Us,we have to.

 

[Knightswhosayni]

I thinks it’s fair to say that maybe exchanging money for help with sin was never a good idea as a penance, unless you stole money as your sin? Obviously it wasnt meant to get out of hand, but it got ridiculously out of hand. Sketchy ideas should be left in the past, and not celebrated as always and forever good and sensible to do. Common sense tells us that’s not the case any other time.

 

[TMC]

I obviously have annoyed you, not sure how. I am only explaining how I see things, and pointing out the obvious, which is that there is a difference between saying something may be believed, and saying the same thing is true. Also - I have not said anything about “confusion,” and I don’t appreciate the suggestion that I am willfully sowing confusion.

Given all of that, perhaps its best if we leave off. I certainly respect your opinion and your right to hold it, even if it differs from mine, and I have not meant to cause offense.