Exegetes, esp., requested here---"A Call to Souls" the revelations to Sister Josefa Menendez concerns me

[foolishmortal]

On the December 12 1922, revelation (page 12 in the TAN booklet), she writes Jesus saying "…But when the time comes they are prevented by self-love, temperament, health, OR I KNOW NOT WHAT (emphasis mine) from carrying out what a few hours before they quite sincerely promised to do.

This troubles me because it’s approved as coming from Jesus, but it writes like Jesus doesn’t know something. I must be misinterpreting something because (anyone on here who have read my posts knows I’m not being disingenuous here) I’m pretty sure bishops are correct when they say a work is free of doctrinal error. They are not divinely protected from approving a work with errors are they (even if the revelations are not required to be be believed in)? I was wondering about that because, in these days, some works by modern authors get stamps like those. This a classic work and revelation though, and less likely to be as iffy as Naju or Medju…

I would like to have my concerns put to rest on this as I’d like it all to be correct teaching that’s truly from Jesus. Thank you and God bless you!

 

[Joysong]

On the December 12 1922, revelation (page 12 in the TAN booklet), she writes Jesus saying "…But when the time comes they are prevented by self-love, temperament, health, OR I KNOW NOT WHAT (emphasis mine) from carrying out what a few hours before they quite sincerely promised to do.

How is this opposed to any doctine of the faith which the Church teaches, and to which the bishops gave approval? They do not pronounce on Our Lord’s actual words, only that the matter is free from “doctrinal” error.

It may be a little difficult to explain here, but very often mystics receive infused knowledge that comes as a thought - without words. When they transcribe what the intellect perceived in thought only, the words may not be what actually was transmitted.

For instance, she may have ‘understood’ from Jesus, that there were OTHER MATTERS (that prevent the full resolution from being carried out, even though He did not go into detail about all of them). In itself, it doesn’t prove that Jesus had no knowledge of what some person may or may not do. Otherwise, He would have had to explain a long list of possibilities which would not really change the message substantially. Sufficed to say, the main three reasons were given to her.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[NoPlaceLikeRome]

Also, this may or may not apply in this case, but it is possible that the translator was thoughtless and translated a Spanish expression with a meaning like “all kinds of things” as “I know not what,” whereas an expression that did *not *have any implications against Our Lord’s omniscience was what Sr. Josefa actually wrote and was read by the Spanish-speaking bishop who gave the imprimatur. You’d have to find the Spanish version to see if that theory is true or not.

 

[Andruschak]

When all is said and done, it remains a “private revelation” that can be ignored. I intend to continue to ignore it, like many of Tan’s reprints:twocents:

 

[Mintaka]

It’s an idiomatic expression. The meaning of the expression is “whatever”. The general connotation seems to be, “I know exactly what, but I’d rather not go into it, because it will either be tedious to enumerate it all or unseemly.”

 

[foolishmortal]

Thanks! Are the bishops free from error when they approve a material as free of errors? I was wondering, because there could be scandal if some of the SSPX Bishops or the liberation theology ones gave their stamp as a bias, even if they did not intend to lie.

BTW What’s wrong with TAN? I know they print Michael Davies books and such, which, even in “I Am With You Always”, says you can be disobedient. I was not aware of that till recently. I misread it thinking it said that our hierarchy had the authority to be obeyed unless what’s asked is obviously inherently evil. Then again, I guess that’s where we get the loophole in the SSPX’s mind. What is inherently evil, they perceive, isn’t usually (there’s some in the hierarchy who are out there, but the SSPX pretty much discredits all of them as a whole due to irreconcileable differences A. Lefebvre had with the Pope John paul 2. Vatican 2 and the N.O. Mass).

Still, TAN publishes tons of great classics. I’m not sure if Davies books and others questioning Vatican 2 and the N.O.'s validity or the motives of their creators should keep me from the classics they publish. I’ll leave that to the moral theologians here. If there are better publishers, let me know.

 

[puzzleannie]

quote is taken out of context, and seems to be about the actions of an otherwise sincere person, not about Christ so I am not seeing the dilemma, would need to see the whole passage and know the context, is it a spiritual guide for souls, does it purport to be a narration of message received by seer directly from Christ (first I have ever heard of it, and I believe if such an apparition or locution was approved by the Church I would have). Just as a side note Tan is a publisher and distributor, does not write or vet the books they publish, and have been at least in the past very eclectic in their choices of works to accept.

 

[Joysong]

Annie, here’s the complete paragraph he referenced:

“But in this, distinguish: to souls who habitually promise and yet do no violence to themselves nor prove their abnegation and love in any way I say: ‘Beware lest all this straw and stubble which you have gathered into your barns take fire or be scattered in an instant by the wind!’ But there are others, and it is of them I now speak, who begin their day with a very good will and desire to prove their love. They pledge themselves to self-denial or generosity in this or that circumstance . . . But when the time comes they are prevented by self-love, temperament, health, or I know not what, from carrying out what a few hours before they quite sincerely purposed to do. Nevertheless they speedily acknowledge their weakness and, filled with shame, beg for pardon, humble themselves, and renew their promise . . . Ah! Let them know that these souls please Me as much as if they had nothing with which to reproach themselves.” (December 12, 1922).

As another poster mentioned, it appears to be idiomatic phrasing.