Mary Co-Redemptrix Poll

[Eilish_Maura]

But your not “sticking with the Church” on this. Your sticking with your own opinion on what the Church teaches and you won’t even consider the possibility that there may be so much more than what you think. Jonah and the Prophets are NOT part of Public Revelation, but they are still part of Church teaching. Public Revelations started with Jesus and ended with the last Apostle.

How is following the Church, who in her wisdom does not demand belief in private revelation, add up to not following the Church if one does just that - not believe in private revelation??

Does the Church say one thing and really mean another? I don’t think so.

BTW - I said Jonah and the prophets were NOT part of private revelation - your comment on this part seems to misrepresent me on this.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I NEVER said the Church INSISTED we follow approved private revelations. What I DID say was we would be wise to know the difference between private revelations and Public Revelation. Your the one that keeps trying to put them on the same level. And I DID say that God must have given us the approved private revelations for a reason and we would be wise to listen to them. Yes, its up to you but I still say you DO NOT know what you are missing by this stubborn attitude towards them.

If it was ‘wise’ to listen to them then the Church would say so. The church does NOT. I take the Church at her word here.

Since the Church does not indicate that it is ‘wise’ to listen to private revelation no Catholic who does not do so is ‘missing’ anything or ‘losing out’ in any way.

Approval by the Church means they are SAFE to listen to, as in nothing that contradicts Church teachings.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

What do you mean by 'sticking with the church on this is never the wrong thing to do?" Do you mean once the church approves an apparition we should respond to it? I would agree to that.

The Church does not teach we should ‘respond’ to an approved apparition.

I am saying that the church is saying this because not every person will understand or even know about these private revelations, Therefore the church says believing and following them is not essential/ for salvation-- for their sake. But those who do know about them and know they are church approved and “worthy of belief” are not following the Church by dismissing them either.

Please provide documentation that shows the italicized section is taught by the Church.

Worth of belief indicates it is considered SAFE to believe in by the Church (see: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=10048&highlight=private+revelation)

The church teaches we are responsible to respond to graces given to us by God and I would say private revelations fall under that category.

Please show where the Church says anything that backs up your position.

Public Revelations is sufficient for the essentials for salvation. You can even come to know many of the things in private revelations just by being faithful to public revealtion, but God gives us so much more…even the bible says that it cannot contain everything about Jesus ,and about God…

The italicized section seems to show elevation of private revelation to levels of inappropriate esteem and contrary to Church teaching.

Do you have official Church teaching to support this position?

 

[Memaw]

How is following the Church, who in her wisdom does not demand belief in private revelation, add up to not following the Church if one does just that - not believe in private revelation??

Does the Church say one thing and really mean another? I don’t think so.

BTW - I said Jonah and the prophets were NOT part of private revelation - your comment on this part seems to misrepresent me on this. QUOTE] (sorry, I ment private).

What part of “worthy of belief” don’t you understand. That IS part of Church teaching. The Church has the authority to guide us in these matters. The Church does not tell us NOT to believe in approved private revelations. The Church never says one thing and mean another but it seems like you do.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Eilish Maura;3316583:

How is following the Church, who in her wisdom does not demand belief in private revelation, add up to not following the Church if one does just that - not believe in private revelation??

What part of “Worthy of Belief” don’t you understand. That IS part of Church teaching.

Does the Church say one thing and really mean another? I don’t think so.

If that were true, than why would the Church tell us that approved apparitions are “worthy of belief.”

BTW - I said Jonah and the prophets were NOT part of private revelation - your comment on this part seems to misrepresent me on this. Sorry I ment private, not part of either one tho. QUOTE]

I am sorry - your post is quite jumbled and nearly unreadable. If you have a question for me maybe you can edit it or restate it.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Are these CAF Apologists wrong about approved apparitions?

It would seem at least one person here thinks so.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=49310&highlight=private+revelation

***Catholics are not bound by private revelations; only by public revelation, which ceased at the death of the last apostle. ***However, it should be noted that the Church does sometimes approve private revelations as worthy of human belief, leaving the decision of belief up to individual Catholics, as it has done with the Divine Mercy revelations believed to have been granted St. Faustina Kowalska.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38968&highlight=private+revelation

Fatima remains private revelation because the Church teaches that there is to be no new public revelation. ***Granting the idea of new public revelation means that we must accept that Christ did not give to his apostles the fullness of the Christian faith and waited some two thousand years to “fill in the blanks.” ***Such a proposition is remarkably similar to the Christian and quasi-Christian sects that claim that Christ gave new public revelations to their particular prophets, a proposition that is incompatible with Christian orthodoxy.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=10048&highlight=private+revelation

When the Church approves of a particular private revelation, it is saying that there is nothing in the private revelation that contradicts the Catholic faith and thus it is safe to give human belief to the apparition. The Church is not binding Catholics’ consciences to believe in any particular private revelation.

 

[Memaw]

Are these CAF Apologists wrong about approved apparitions?

It would seem at least one person here thinks so.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=49310&highlight=private+revelation

***Catholics are not bound by private revelations; only by public revelation, which ceased at the death of the last apostle. ***However, it should be noted that the Church does sometimes approve private revelations as worthy of human belief, leaving the decision of belief up to individual Catholics, as it has done with the Divine Mercy revelations believed to have been granted St. Faustina Kowalska.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38968&highlight=private+revelation

Fatima remains private revelation because the Church teaches that there is to be no new public revelation. ***Granting the idea of new public revelation means that we must accept that Christ did not give to his apostles the fullness of the Christian faith and waited some two thousand years to “fill in the blanks.” ***Such a proposition is remarkably similar to the Christian and quasi-Christian sects that claim that Christ gave new public revelations to their particular prophets, a proposition that is incompatible with Christian orthodoxy.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=10048&highlight=private+revelation

When the Church approves of a particular private revelation, it is saying that there is nothing in the private revelation that contradicts the Catholic faith and thus it is safe to give human belief to the apparition. The Church is not binding Catholics’ consciences to believe in any particular private revelation.

I agree with everything the apologists said. but I think you misunderstand the meaning. The Church is careful to show us the distinct difference between Public Revelation and private revelation, but she does not tell us to brush approved private revelations off like they are unimportant. Maybe if you really study Lourdes and Fatima you would understand why…The Church just celebrated the 150th Ann. of Lourdes. We even have a special Mass on that day. The Church shows special devotion to Lourdes and Fatima, why not follow Her example.

 

[Taliesin]

Halo,

Let’s put it in this way, replacing HAIL to HELLO.

Luke 1:28. And coming to her, he said, “HELLO, full of grace! The Lord is with you.”

Matthew 26:49. Immediately he went over to Jesus and said, “HELLO, Rabbi!” and he kissed him.

Matthew 27:29. Weaving a crown out of thorns, they placed it on his head, and a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, “HELLO, King of the Jews!”

John 19:3. And they came to him and said, “HELLO, King of the Jews!” And they struck him repeatedly.

I think as you read this it sounds funny.

So it’s a word that has a range of meaning, from “greetings” to “hail”.

 

[Taliesin]

There is a new thread on this topic, but I thought those of you here might be interested in knowing that 5 Cardinals are working on getting Mary declared Co-Redemptrix.

Permalink: zenit.org/article-21749?l=english

Cardinals Hoping for a 5th Marian Dogma

To Declare Mary as Mother of Humanity

ROME, FEB. 11, 2008 (Zenit.org).-
“…mediatrix of all graces with Jesus the one mediator, …”

So on one side of her mouth she says Mary’s a mediator, and on the other side she says Jesus is the one mediator. Clear as mud.

 

[Taliesin]

If Mary was good enough to be the Mother of God’s own son, Jesus, why is she not good enough to be your Mother or the Mother of any of Jesus’ folowers? You don’t sound like a follower of Christ. The fact that Jesus chose Mary to be His Mother is good enough reason for any of us to feel blessed to say she is our Mother as well! This is true imitation of Christ…following Him even in the choice of His Mother.

God Bless, maryJohnZ

Let me get this straight: because I don’t subscribe to an idea and a devotion that has no support in Scripture (“behold, there is your mother,” was uttered to John, not to me), and wasn’t adopted for centuries after Christ, that makes you think I’m not a follower of Christ. What a laugh! You have no idea of the state of my discipleship, and yet you make such a rash statement.

She wasn’t Jesus’s spiritual mother. Only physical. I already have one. Jesus did not choose Mary to be His spiritual mother, in the sense that you and the whole Roman Catholic Church are putting forth. You’re confusing categories.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

The Church does not teach we should ‘respond’ to an approved apparition.

Please provide documentation that shows the italicized section is taught by the Church.

Worth of belief indicates it is considered SAFE to believe in by the Church (see: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=10048&highlight=private+revelation)

Please show where the Church says anything that backs up your position.

The italicized section seems to show elevation of private revelation to levels of inappropriate esteem and contrary to Church teaching.

Do you have official Church teaching to support this position?

“It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history” From your website.

The fact that it is a sin not to respond to a grace or to resist the Holy Spirit seems to be sufficient to me ( church teaching) to say at the very least, once an apparition is deemed 'worthy of belief", meaning there is nothing in it contrary to the faith…and that there is sufficient evidence that something occured that is from God…then would it not be a sin of ommission to disregard or ignore it?

" A sin of commission is a positive act contrary to some prohibitory precept; a sin of omission is a failure to do what is commanded. A sin of omission, however, requires a positive act whereby one wills to omit the fulfilling of a precept, or at least wills something incompatible with its fulfillment (I-II:72:5)"

Since the Marian apparitions have continually recalled us to essential precepts of Marian devotion then to consciously will to suppress that is more than just suppressing the apparition…it is suppressing the precept recalled by the apparition. Now if you want to promote Marian devotion without mentioning Fatima, just talking about the Marian Dogmas and her role as universal Mother…then I think you are following Fatima as well, even if you say you are just following Church teaching. The problem is that most people who say all the private revelations are not 'essential" and therefor to be ignored don’t practice strong Marian devotion either…so in either case there is a sin of ommission in regards to
teachings on Mary.

Anyone who is striving only for what is essential is not striving for perfection…do you understand what I am saying? God does do things like send His Mother to speak to us without good cause.
I believe that the above website which you provided just backs up the importance of paying heed to messages from approved apparitions…not because it is necessary or because they add to Public Revelations but because they are for us in our time.

We are not called to just what is essential but to perfection.

Luke 19:44
and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."
Luke 19:43-45 (in Context) Luke 19 (Whole Chapter)

 

[MaryJohnZ]

I apologize for mutiple entries. I must have accidentally entered replies before I had finished editing my thoughts…

So sorry…

Mary

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I agree with everything the apologists said. but I think you misunderstand the meaning. The Church is careful to show us the distinct difference between Public Revelation and private revelation, but she does not tell us to brush approved private revelations off like they are unimportant. Maybe if you really study Lourdes and Fatima you would understand why…The Church just celebrated the 150th Ann. of Lourdes. We even have a special Mass on that day. The Church shows special devotion to Lourdes and Fatima, why not follow Her example.

There is NOTHING in the quotes from the apologists that shows private revelation cannot be ignored or that they are considered ‘important’ by the Church.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

The fact that it is a sin not to respond to a grace or to resist the Holy Spirit seems to be sufficient to me ( church teaching) to say at the very least, once an apparition is deemed 'worthy of belief", meaning there is nothing in it contrary to the faith…and that there is sufficient evidence that something occured that is from God…then would it not be a sin of ommission to disregard or ignore it?

THE CHURCH HAS NOT DECLARED IT A SIN TO DISREGARD OR IGNORE APPROVED PRIVATE REVELATION.

Since the Marian apparitions have continually recalled us to essential precepts of Marian devotion then to consciously will to suppress that is more than just suppressing the apparition…it is suppressing the precept recalled by the apparition. Now if you want to promote Marian devotion without mentioning Fatima, just talking about the Marian Dogmas and her role as universal Mother…then I think you are following Fatima as well, even if you say you are just following Church teaching. The problem is that most people who say all the private revelations are not 'essential" and therefor to be ignored don’t practice strong Marian devotion either…so in either case there is a sin of ommission in regards to
teachings on Mary.

THIS IS NOT WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES ABOUT PRIVATE REVELATION OR THE CHOICE TO NOT BELIEVE IN IT.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

She wasn’t Jesus’s spiritual mother. Only physical. I already have one. Jesus did not choose Mary to be His spiritual mother, in the sense that you and the whole Roman Catholic Church are putting forth. You’re confusing categories.

You are ascribing to an old heresy that Christ’s humanity is separate and distinct from His divinity. Christ is both human and divine…His natures are united perfectly as the Word Incarnate. Mary is the Mother of Christ who is both God and man.

Just as eve is the ‘mother of all the living’ in the physical order because we can all trace ourselves back to the original Adam and Eve, then Mary is the Mother of 'all the living in the spiritual order or God’s family. If you are a follower of Christ then you would desire to imitate Him in everything including asking Mary to be your Mother. She already loves you, so why can you not see that Jesus gave her to you?

Do you really think the passage in John when jesus gives mary to John to ne his Mother was only a practical act at the end? This is an inheritance he is passing on to all His family.

It is only what makes sense.

MaryJohnZ

 

[Memaw]

Let me get this straight: because I don’t subscribe to an idea and a devotion that has no support in Scripture (“behold, there is your mother,” was uttered to John, not to me), and wasn’t adopted for centuries after Christ, that makes you think I’m not a follower of Christ. What a laugh! You have no idea of the state of my discipleship, and yet you make such a rash statement.

She wasn’t Jesus’s spiritual mother. Only physical. I already have one. Jesus did not choose Mary to be His spiritual mother, in the sense that you and the whole Roman Catholic Church are putting forth. You’re confusing categories.

Your the one thats confused and this just shows it!

 

[MaryJohnZ]

THE CHURCH HAS NOT DECLARED IT A SIN TO DISREGARD OR IGNORE APPROVED PRIVATE REVELATION.

THIS IS NOT WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES ABOUT PRIVATE REVELATION OR THE CHOICE TO NOT BELIEVE IN IT./QUOTE

Why isn’t it? Explain what you are afraid of in private revelations that have been approved by the church. Convince me that by disregarding them, no harm can come to the Body of Christ.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Eilish Maura;3317058:

THE CHURCH HAS NOT DECLARED IT A SIN TO DISREGARD OR IGNORE APPROVED PRIVATE REVELATION.

THIS IS NOT WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES ABOUT PRIVATE REVELATION OR THE CHOICE TO NOT BELIEVE IN IT.

I am not the one making an unsubstantiated claims about what the Church teaches.

IF what you are saying is true then the Church is saying one thing and means another - the Church does not jerk us around that way.

 

[Memaw]

MaryJohnZ;3317174:

I am not the one making an unsubstantiated claims about what the Church teaches.

IF what you are saying is true then the Church is saying one thing and means another - the Church does not jerk us around that way.

Eilish, The Church is not doing the jerking, you are. What is your problem anyway, what are you trying to say. I am begining to think you just like to argue and you think you are always right. Its gotta be your way or you think the Church is wrong, I have news for you.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

The Church is not doing the jerking, you are. What is your problem anyway, what are you trying to say. I am begining to think you just like to argue and you think you are always right. Its gotta be your way or you think the Church is wrong, I have news for you.

I am not the one adding to what the Church says on this topic and I am not misrepresenting what the Church says.

IF the Church believes that ignoring private revelation was detrimental in any way then it would not be optional for all Catholics. The fact is the Church does not believe ignoring private revelation is detrimental and makes sure to say quite clearly that private revelation is not binding on any Catholic.