Posted on 05/12/2024 7:58:48 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
The Vatican’s doctrine office will publish a new document next week on discerning Marian apparitions and other supernatural events.
The Holy See Press Office announced on Tuesday that Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), will unveil new norms for discernment regarding “apparitions and other supernatural phenomena” on Friday, May 17.
In an interview with the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, last month, Fernandez said that the document will provide “clear guidelines and norms” for discernment.
The new norms will be the first time that the Vatican’s doctrinal office has issued a general document on apparitions in four decades. Pope Paul VI approved norms on “the discernment of presumed apparitions or revelations” in 1978.
(Excerpt) Read more at onenewspage.com ...
I’m sure that e.t. believes that B16 did many things correctly.
Francis, maybe not so much.
I’d tend to agree with him (e.t., not Francis).
Happy Feast of St. Peter Celestine. (Who managed to make it into the Mass I attended twice today . . . as someone Francis might receive special graces from.)
The work of translation began in the latter half of 1830 and was completed on July 2, 1833, although the manuscripts indicate additional editing by Joseph after that date. Many sections in the Doctrine and Covenants give the Lord's instructions regarding the translation (see D&C 34:5; 42:5c, 15a; 45:11a; 73:2a; 76:3c; 87:5a; and 90:12).
Although the work is referred to as a "translation," it should be understood that the process of receiving the text was primarily revelatory, as opposed to the modern definition of scholarly conversion of a writing from one language to another. The Doctrine and Covenants indicates the inspired and revelatory nature of the work: "the Scriptures shall be given even as they are in mine own bosom, to the salvation of mine own elect" (D&C 34:5b).
In view of Joseph Smith's revelatory experience, it was natural that he should seek more light relative to the biblical text, especially as he came to realize the inadequacy of the available versions. Revelations concerning the creation and early history of mankind and the prophecy of Enoch were received between June and December, 1830. The specific commandments authorizing the "New Translation" are found in the Doctrine and Covenants:
and a commandment I give unto thee [Sidney Rigdon], that thou shalt write for him [Joseph Smith]; and the Scriptures shall be given even as they are in mine own bosom, to the salvation of mine own elect.--Section 34:5, December 1830.
Thou shalt ask, and my Scriptures shall be given as I have appointed, and they shall be preserved in safety; and it is expedient that thou shouldst hold thy peace concerning them, and not teach them until thou hast received them in full.--Section 42:15a, February 1831.
And now, behold, I say unto you, it shall not be given unto you to know any further concerning this chapter [Matthew 24], until the New Testament be translated, and in it all these things shall be made known; wherefore, I give unto you that you may now translate it, that ye may be prepared for the things to come; for verily I say unto you, that great things await you.--Section 45:11a, b, March 1831.
Smith claimed that he received a revelation on January 10, 1832 commanding him “to continue the work of translation until it be finished” (D&C 73:4b). A year and a half later, Joseph Smith said his translation was completed. On July 2, 1833, History of the Church 1:368 reported,
“We this day finished the translating of the Scriptures, for which we return gratitude to our Heavenly Father.”
“The Joseph Smith Translation, or Inspired Version, is a thousand times over the best Bible now existing on earth. It contains all that the King James Version does, plus pages of additions and corrections and an occasional deletion. It was made by the spirit of revelation, and the changes and additions are the equivalent of the revealed word in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. For historical and other reasons, there has been among some members of the Church in times past some prejudice and misunderstanding of the place of the Joseph Smith Translation. I hope this has now all vanished away. Our new Church Bible footnotes many of the major changes made in the Inspired Version and has a seventeen-page section which sets forth excerpts that are too lengthy for inclusion in the footnotes. Reference to this section and to the footnotes themselves will give anyone who has spiritual insight a deep appreciation of this revelatory work of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is one of the great evidences of his prophetic call”
(Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, p. 289). http://www.mrm.org/smith-inspired-version
True.
All he does is look around to see what is happening.
No, it was not on ealgeone. Your comment actually did imply a judgment. I read it that way as well.
Otherwise, why make the distinction? Why point out that it was OT as if it weren't good enough, or subservient to NT Scripture?
the same God breathed out all of it. No one part of it can be of less importance or less worthy than another.
So why’d you blank out ealgeone’s name in your response to his post 347 and post it to nobody?
Did you not want to ping him to it hoping he didn’t see it?
Because posting to no screen name takes a deliberate action of deleting it. It by it’s very nature an intentional act.
So by what standard is the determination made whether the pope is speaking infallibly?
No. Tradition is a practice handed down through generations.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition
1 a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (such as a religious practice or a social custom)
b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable
… the bulk of traditions attributed to the Prophet …—J. L. Esposito
2: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
4: characteristic manner, method, or style in the best liberal tradition
Even preaching another’s message, is not *tradition*. Passing on a message is not *tradition* either.
But Scripture does say it's sufficient.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
If Scripture were insufficient then it couldn't make the man of God complete, nor equipped for EVERY good work.
Scripture failing to mention that something happened doesn't give people license to make stuff up, claim it happened, and pass it off as Truth, simply because because *it could have happened.*
Hey, but you all just go on ahead and rely on word of mouth and add ons to Scripture, just like the Pharisees did.
But it’s worth reading how it turned out for them and what Jesus had to say about it.
Not likely He lives bound up in a tasteless, wheat wafer either.
I guess Catholics are animists.
Scripture tells us He lives in us.
Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, it was intentional.
I have my reasons. You can ask him.
That should be sufficient to show it was only the scriptures they searched.
Why pass off responsibility to someone else? He didn’t do it. He’s not answerable for you.
You could tell others yourself and not be a coward about it since you did it for all to see.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition
There is nothing about "generations" in the first definition you listed.
Even preaching another’s message, is not *tradition*. Passing on a message is not *tradition* either.
Certainly the early practices and teachings of the Church were past down in the form of oral traditions. Almost everything of what was eventually written in the Gospels was first passed on as oral tradition.
2 Timothy 3:14-17
If Scripture were insufficient then it couldn't make the man of God complete, nor equipped for EVERY good work.
Scripture is certainly profitable and useful (from the Greek ophelimos) for teaching, but that doesn't make it mandatory or sufficient for teaching every individual point of theology, and not at all without Tradition (2 Thess 2:15). There are far too many seriously misguided and contradictory Christian sects in history and even today to believe that Scripture alone is sufficient.
Also, many of the Epistles weren't yet written and none of the New Testament books were in the Canon of Sacred Books when St. Paul wrote this. Much less when Timothy would have been a child. To take these verses as a justification for Sola Scriptura would mean that only the Old Testament was binding and that the New Testament wasn't necessary at all.
Sure, but Scripture failing to mention something doesn't mean that it didn't happen, either. Scripture isn't a complete history, and our understanding of Christ was passed down to us both through written and oral traditions and practices.
The funny part of about what you wrote above is that the Protestant churches tend to be the strictest and most Pharisaical in their interpretations of scripture, and yet they all disagree! The reason for this is that guidance is needed to properly interpret Scripture (see Acts 8:31 and Heb 5:12) and they base their interpretations on their own peculiar oral traditions unmoored from anything but their own whims.
But it’s worth reading how it turned out for them and what Jesus had to say about it.
And Jesus's words were passed down verbally until they were eventually written down, sometimes by people who never met Him. Jesus didn't write a book like Mohammad or Joseph Smith did. Jesus left us with a Church which assembled, approved, and preserved the Scriptures you hold so dear. The fact is that your denomination, whatever it is, chose to leave this Church and take nothing but the book and their own unique interpretations of it. Not everything was written down in the Bible (John 21:25) and so an underlying assumption of your beliefs is faulty and this will unfortunately but inevitably lead to other errors in how your denomination's oral tradition interprets Scripture.
Glad you asked.
While I can provide the standard (and do so below) how the standard is applied is debated. Some Theologians argue that aside from affirming those parts of ecumenical Council decrees that meet the standard (there are reasonable arguments to claim that NONE of the Vatican II documents had any parts that met these standards), only the definition section of the decrees on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption have met the standard.
I have heard arguments advanced on Paul VI’s teaching on contraception and JPII’s teaching on the ordination of women.
Suffice it to say that the general consensus is that it is extremely rare. Moreover, if in doubt about a particular situation, one is not obliged to presume that infallibility has been exercised.
Given this rareness, the more interesting question is how to deal with likely non-infallible statements of the Pope-—but that is not what you asked about, and so I will proceed to actually answering your question
Vatican I (1869-1870), and to a lesser extent Vatican II, are the places to look for the most authoritative and definitive explanations (which isn’t to say that there aren’t places that aren’t clearer or more detailed—just that other things are often in no way official and Catholics are under either no or less obligation to affirm them.
Here is what Vatican I ended up saying:
This is literally the last paragraph and conclusion of the official work of Vatican I (Church Counsel from 1869-1870).
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm
Two relevant (probably the most relevant) paragraphs out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,”419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
This is a larger, also relevant section of the Catechisme:
I. Moral Life and the Magisterium of the Church
2032 The Church, the “pillar and bulwark of the truth,” “has received this solemn command of Christ from the apostles to announce the saving truth.”74 “To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls.”75
2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the “deposit” of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.
2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are “authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice.”76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.
2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.77
2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.78
2037 The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. the faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason.79 They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity.
2038 In the work of teaching and applying Christian morality, the Church needs the dedication of pastors, the knowledge of theologians, and the contribution of all Christians and men of good will. Faith and the practice of the Gospel provide each person with an experience of life “in Christ,” who enlightens him and makes him able to evaluate the divine and human realities according to the Spirit of God.80 Thus the Holy Spirit can use the humblest to enlighten the learned and those in the highest positions.
Elsie—
As Metmom had included you in the post to which my 419 is replying (you may have started that sub-thread, as it were) I am pinging you to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.