Third Testament?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CoboltBlue
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CoboltBlue

Guest
I was just reading in www.catholicplanet.com that the church believe in and accepts into their line of traditional turths the Third Testament by Martinis Thomsen (he is dead) but his ‘supposed’ revelation lives on.
It explains that Jesus told him to tell the ‘rest of the story’ since, at the time of Jesus and the Apostles they were not ready to hear the rest…
Thanks,CoboltBlue

“O God the Lord, the Strength of my salvation…” Psalms 140:7
 
Private revelations never add to the deposit of faith. All public revelations of the Church ended with the apostles. Individuals are permitted however, to believe in private revelations of their choosing so long as they do not contradict authentic teachings of the Church.
 
A cursory examination of www.catholicplanet.com shows they are spreading the Garabandal messages, which have been condemned by the local Church authority.

What does this suggest about catholicplanet?
 
I was just reading in www.catholicplanet.com that the church believe in and accepts into their line of traditional turths the Third Testament by Martinis Thomsen (he is dead) but his ‘supposed’ revelation lives on.
It explains that Jesus told him to tell the ‘rest of the story’ since, at the time of Jesus and the Apostles they were not ready to hear the rest…
Thanks,CoboltBlue

“O God the Lord, the Strength of my salvation…” Psalms 140:7
Hi Cobalt Blue, I can see that you a fairly new to this forum and I would like to begin with a hardy welcome and a hope that your stay with us here will by informative as well as pleasurable.

Both post 2 & 3 have given you replies that should let you now that your assumption, about this third testament being approved by the church, is faulty. ON my time here one of the most frustrating & probaly the most amusing things I have read are from new posters that start threads trying to tell us Catholics what we believe about this or don’t know about that.

I would also pray that when you ask questions or try to tell us what the truth is that you open your heart and mind to the answers from some of the more knowlegable catholics who you will no doubt encounter. (I’m not one of them… more knowledgeable that is)
As for the topic of this I will show you what the Cathecism of the Catholic Church states. YOu can then determine whether or not the Church would ever endorse anything like what is described as the “Third Testament.”

Peace:thumbsup:

There will be no further Revelation

66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 **Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. 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. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. **
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain nonChristian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

IN BRIEF

68 By love, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. He has thus provided the definitive, superabundant answer to the questions that man asks himself about the meaning and purpose of his life.
69 God has revealed himself to man by gradually communicating his own mystery in deeds and in words.

70 Beyond the witness to himself that God gives in created things, he manifested himself to our first parents, spoke to them and, after the fall, promised them salvation (cf. Gen 3:15) and offered them his covenant.

71 God made an everlasting covenant with Noah and with all living beings (cf. Gen 9:16). It will remain in force as long as the world lasts.

72 God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him and his descendants. By the covenant God formed his people and revealed his law to them through Moses. Through the prophets, he prepared them to accept the salvation destined for all humanity.

73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.
 
A cursory examination of www.catholicplanet.com shows they are spreading the Garabandal messages, which have been condemned by the local Church authority.

What does this suggest about catholicplanet?
I know very little about Martinis Thomsen, but I don’t believe the Garabandal messages have been condemned by the local Church authority, according to the documents and documentaries I’ve seen.

In Janice T. Connell’s book - “Meetings With Mary” (1995 Ballantyne Books), the author reports: " Though the apparitions at Garabandal have not been approved by the Church, they remain under diocesan investigation."

There seems to be a misinterpretation emanating from not being well enough acquainted (I’m in this category too) with the strict terminology which must be adhered to when bishops are obliged render judgements regarding the status of private revelations or mystical phenomena.

There’s a really nice informative piece explaining the process (as it relates to the events at Garabandal) in a little more detail at the following link:

ourlady.ca/info/churchPositionUpdate.html
 
I know very little about Martinis Thomsen, but I don’t believe the Garabandal messages have been condemned by the local Church authority, according to the documents and documentaries I’ve seen.

**They have NOT been approved.

ewtn.com/library/bishops/garaband.htm

**

<<Diocese of Santander

Santander, [date]

Some people have been coming directly to the Diocese of Santander (Spain) asking about the “alleged apparitions” of Garabandal, and above all for the position of the hierarchy of the Church concerning these apparitions.

I must communicate that:
  1. All the bishops of the diocese from 1961 through 1970 asserted that the supernatural character of the said apparitions, that took place around that time, could not be confirmed. [no constaba].*>>
 
I was just reading in www.catholicplanet.com that the church believe in and accepts into their line of traditional turths the Third Testament by Martinis Thomsen (he is dead) but his ‘supposed’ revelation lives on.
It explains that Jesus told him to tell the ‘rest of the story’ since, at the time of Jesus and the Apostles they were not ready to hear the rest…
Thanks,CoboltBlue

“O God the Lord, the Strength of my salvation…” Psalms 140:7
I went to that web site and although I did not read the article you are refering to, I was there long enough to know that the site is dangerous. I am an Orthodox Roman Catholic and in my studies I have discovered that speculative theology can be in many cases dissenting at best and heretical at worst. Here is an example. Karl Rahner one of the most famouse “higher critics” and speculative theologin wrote. " The theology of the future must be a demythologizing one" He went on to clarify what he meant. " Miracles in the Bible are no more than stories, demonic posession is actualy mental illness, the real presence is not real only the meaning changes at consacration. His dissenting theology goes on and on. If I were you I would run from that site and never look back. God Bless
 
I know very little about Martinis Thomsen, but I don’t believe the Garabandal messages have been condemned by the local Church authority, according to the documents and documentaries I’ve seen.

**They have NOT been approved.


  1. All the bishops of the diocese from 1961 through 1970 asserted that the supernatural character of the said apparitions, that took place around that time, could not be confirmed. [no constaba].*>>**
 
I know very little about Martinis Thomsen, but I don’t believe the Garabandal messages have been condemned by the local Church authority, according to the documents and documentaries I’ve seen.

**They have NOT been approved. …
  1. All the bishops of the diocese from 1961 through 1970 asserted that the supernatural character of the said apparitions, that took place around that time, could not be confirmed. [no constaba].*>>**
Sorry about the double quote (wasn’t permitted to delete it).
I know it’s straying a little off topic but nobody’s saying the events at Garabandal have been approved. I’m saying they haven’t been condemned…big difference [from the link I posted earlier in the thread}: …

[COLOR=“Navy”]1. Constat de supernaturalitate — It is certain that the events are of supernatural origin.
  1. Non-constat de supernaturalitate — It is not certain that the events are of supernatural origin, i.e., the supernatural origin has not been established. Here the events in question are still open to eventual recognition as being authentic.
  2. Constat de non supernaturalitate — It is certain that the events are not of supernatural origin.
Code:
The key word is constat, which has the meaning "to be certain, sure, or evident". So long as a manifestation is in the second category, it is in the safe zone. Garabandal is in this second category. In fact, the purported letter used to discredit it confirms its status as such. The Spanish verb constar is derived from the Latin constat and has the same meaning. In Bishop Vilaplana's letter, he uses the expression no consta ("not certain"), thus clearly assigning Garabandal to the second category.
 
I went to that web site and although I did not read the article you are refering to, I was there long enough to know that the site is dangerous. I am an Orthodox Roman Catholic and in my studies I have discovered that speculative theology can be in many cases dissenting at best and heretical at worst. Here is an example. Karl Rahner one of the most famouse “higher critics” and speculative theologin wrote. " The theology of the future must be a demythologizing one" He went on to clarify what he meant. " Miracles in the Bible are no more than stories, demonic posession is actualy mental illness, the real presence is not real only the meaning changes at consacration. His dissenting theology goes on and on. If I were you I would run from that site and never look back. God Bless
Thanks I won’t count on that sight any more. But I am reading the rest of the post to see if the church really is accepting such nonesence. Thank, CoboltBlue
 
Hi Cobalt Blue, I can see that you a fairly new to this forum and I would like to begin with a hardy welcome and a hope that your stay with us here will by informative as well as pleasurable.

++Thank you!++

Both post 2 & 3 have given you replies that should let you now that your assumption, about this third testament being approved by the church, is faulty. ON my time here one of the most frustrating & probaly the most amusing things I have read are from new posters that start threads trying to tell us Catholics what we believe about this or don’t know about that.

++You may believe what you like but when I was reading under that web sight it was the first time I have ever heard of such a crazy thing as a third testament. And that information made it sound like the RCC had accepted it. I will say I am sorry to you and everyone here for asking but I was truly concerned and not trying to be rude. ++

I would also pray that when you ask questions or try to tell us what the truth is that you open your heart and mind to the answers from some of the more knowlegable catholics who you will no doubt encounter. (I’m not one of them… more knowledgeable that is)
As for the topic of this I will show you what the Cathecism of the Catholic Church states. YOu can then determine whether or not the Church would ever endorse anything like what is described as the “Third Testament.”

Peace:thumbsup:

There will be no further Revelation

66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 **Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. 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. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. **
Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain nonChristian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

++I don’t know that I accept this word for word but I will agree that there will not be any “new” revelations or profits/apostels speaking that would add to what God has set forth.++

IN BRIEF

68 By love, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. He has thus provided the definitive, superabundant answer to the questions that man asks himself about the meaning and purpose of his life.
69 God has revealed himself to man by gradually communicating his own mystery in deeds and in words.

70 Beyond the witness to himself that God gives in created things, he manifested himself to our first parents, spoke to them and, after the fall, promised them salvation (cf. Gen 3:15) and offered them his covenant.

71 God made an everlasting covenant with Noah and with all living beings (cf. Gen 9:16). It will remain in force as long as the world lasts.

72 God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him and his descendants. By the covenant God formed his people and revealed his law to them through Moses. Through the prophets, he prepared them to accept the salvation destined for all humanity.
++is this all that is revealed to you about the Abrahamic Covenant?++

73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.
Thanks for your answers. May God’s joy be inside of you. CoboltBlue
 
Private revelations never add to the deposit of faith. All public revelations of the Church ended with the apostles. Individuals are permitted however, to believe in private revelations of their choosing so long as they do not contradict authentic teachings of the Church.
This is where we come to a disagreement. God gave us His Holy Spirit to indwell inside of us John 14:26 “But the Comforter (Counselor,Helper,Intercessor,Advocate,Strengthener,Standby,the Holy Spirit; Whom the Father wil send in My name [in My place, to represent Me and act on My behalf]; He will teach you all things. And he will cause you to recall (will remind you of, bring to your rememberance)everything I have told you.”
We as individuals have the capacity through the Holy Spirit to read, digest, and interprete Scripture on our own. Scripture does not contradict itself. If we search all ‘like’ scripture we can put a full and conclusive thought to it, We don’t separate some because it fits our needs…we accept ALL of it. The main way to know you have it right is to see and understand that scripture is not contrary to the character of God (it should not go against the teaching of God).
We do not need to be limited to a church made up of mortal men deciding what they will limit you to understand on your own. And what they will determine needs to have church 'laws,traditions, added to it…where by it changes the whole message in some instances because it suits the church and how it does things.Not how or what God said alone in the scripture.
God’s word must not have legalism (which Christ died to end)added to it.It is legalism to be told what you must think or not think on scripture according to rules made up by man.This is how the church keeps people bound to it. And it keeps people from receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to lead them outside of what the church wants you to know, learn and think upon.
Think about your last statement: as long as personal revelation does not contradict authentic teachings of the church.
Here is where RCC put what the ‘church’ thinks ABOVE what God is tell us…listening to it first and then God.
Revelation can be as simple as gaining the true meaning of a scripture through your God given discernment.
I know you hold to your view through the ‘church’. I am blessed to hold to God’s view and have his Holy Spirit indwelling me, leading me and teaching me the truths of His Word.
 
In 1998 My wife & I were in Garabandal. We were on a tour that included Fatima, Garabandal and Lourdes. There was an Irish woman who lived there who gave talks to those who came, which we attended. During the talk, wherein she was telling of the “private revelations”, she ended with this statement. “And if you do not believe in this, you are going to go to hell.” Knowing how this totally contradicted the Church’s teaching on private revelation, I turned to my wife and said, lets go, this is wrong and contradicts Church authority and teaching and we walked out of the talk and went straight to the small church that was there and prayed before the Blessed Sacrament not only for that woman, but for all who were at the talk. Later, on the bus, when we were driving to Lourdes, to told everyone why I walked out and why I no longer gave any credence to the alleged apparitions at Garabandal. I have since read where the local bishop refused to approve the apparition.

As far as a third testament, don’t even go there. This is how apostasy and error is introduced. Do not delve into things like this, rather delve into the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the official teachings of the Church to learn more. You will find it is rich and fulfilling. . Do not go off on an “Indiana Jones” goose chase which will lead you astray.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
=CoboltBlue;4030782]This is where we come to a disagreement. God gave us His Holy Spirit to indwell inside of us John 14:26 “But the Comforter (Counselor,Helper,Intercessor,Advocate,Strengthener,Standby,the Holy Spirit; Whom the Father wil send in My name [in My place, to represent Me and act on My behalf]; He will teach you all things. And he will cause you to recall (will remind you of, bring to your rememberance)everything I have told you.”
We as individuals have the capacity through the Holy Spirit to read, digest, and interprete Scripture on our own. Scripture does not contradict itself.
Where in the Bible does it say that we can interprete scripture on our own? Isn’t this the reason there are over 30,000 denominations, many with different beliefs based on private interpretation.? Only the Church established by Christ has the authority to inteprete scripture. Christ said he would send the Holy Spirit to instruct the Apostles, and likewise** their successors**, for he said he would be with us always. He did not say he would send the Holy Spirit to instruct individuals.** The Church** is the pillar and foundation of truth.
1 Tim 3:15
[15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth

2 Peter 3:15-16
15] And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
[16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
 
A cursory examination of www.catholicplanet.com shows they are spreading the Garabandal messages, which have been condemned by the local Church authority.

What does this suggest about catholicplanet?
**I don’t agree with catholicplanet on a number of issues, but again, Garabandal WAS NEVER CONDEMNED by the local Church authority and it has remained opened since the last apparition in 1965.

I suppose you support Medjugorje?**
 
I suppose you support Medjugorje?

No. Certain messages attributed to the apparition of Medjugorje do NOT sound like the Virgin Mary of the Holy Scripture.
 
**I don’t agree with catholicplanet on a number of issues, but again, Garabandal WAS NEVER CONDEMNED by the local Church authority and it has remained opened since the last apparition in 1965.
**
Never Condemned is nowhere near the same as approval.

Until there is approval, any belief is supposed to be private only.
Anyone teaching that a private revelation is required belief is a manifest heretic.
Anyone teaching an unapproved private revelation in public is not teaching the Catholic faith.

Anyone teaching a condemned private revelation is in fact committing a schismatic act and teaching heresey.
I suppose you support Medjugorje?
No. Nor any of a dozen other private revelations.
 
Never Condemned is nowhere near the same as approval.
Until there is approval, any belief is supposed to be private only.
Anyone teaching that a private revelation is required belief is a manifest heretic.
Anyone teaching an unapproved private revelation in public is not teaching the Catholic faith.
Anyone teaching a condemned private revelation is in fact committing a schismatic act and teaching heresey.
No. Nor any of a dozen other private revelations.
**I was correcting the poster on his/her statement that Garabandal was emphatically condemned by the local diocese, and that is not true. Although the original investigative commission concluded that there was nothing supernatural which occurred there.But in his “Official Note” of July 8, 1965 Bishop Eugenio Beitia of Santander wrote,

“We point out, however, that we have not found anything deserving of ecclesiastical censorship or condemnation either in the doctrine or in the spiritual recommendations that have been publicized as having been addressed to the faithful, for these contain an exhortation to prayer and sacrifice, to Eucharistic devotion, to veneration of Our Lady in traditional praiseworthy ways, and to holy fear of God offended by our sins. They simply repeat the common doctrine of the Church in these matters.”

That doesn’t sound like a condemnation to me in any sense of the term. It sounds quite pastoral.**
 
We as individuals have the capacity through the Holy Spirit to read, digest, and interpret Scripture on our own.

We do not need to be limited to a church made up of mortal men deciding what they will limit you to understand on your own. And what they will determine needs to have church 'laws,traditions, added to it…where by it changes the whole message in some instances because it suits the church and how it does things.Not how or what God said alone in the scripture.
You are correct, this is where we part company. We can interpret scripture on our own for personal guidance and edification. However when that interpretation is in contradiction to what the Church has always taught it becomes dangerous territory.

For a Catholic the final word on any private interpretation is the Pope and the Bishops teaching as the successors of Peter and the Apostles. Particularly Peter and his successors, the Popes, who were given the keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind or loose. Sacred Tradition and the Scriptures taken together with this teaching authority of the Pope and Bishops are the standard to which all Catholics look. This is not a teaching authority of mere men, but the authority given them by Jesus Christ in person.
It is the authority of Jesus Christ himself, which was delegated to Peter and those Popes who came after him.

Popes can commit sin, some can even be considered immoral, they are not impeccable. When they teach on matters of faith and morals they are infallible and are protected by the Holy Spirit from error in such teaching. To arrogate that protection to yourself by self interpretation of the Bible is what leads to the chaos of a multiplicity of churches or denominations which cannot agree on what the Bible actually teaches; each one claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit then becomes a spirit of disunity and twisted truths which we all know is not possible. While individual Catholics may squabble and disagree those who remain Catholic look to the Pope for the final word.

I actually get a chuckle out of folks who claim the Holy Spirit guides their personal interpretation. It becomes a toss up when two of them come together with different interpretations of the same text as too which one, if either of them are indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit. Would seem the Holy Spirit must change his mind every minute as to what the correct interpretation is and of course mine is always the correct one.

By the bye, I like that name, Cobalt Blue. Being a retired chemist I know it is a beautiful color. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top