Vatican To Publish New Document On Marian Apparitions Next Week

One News Page ^ | 5/6/24 | Courtney Mares

[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.

[fidelis]

Still doesn’t say anything about the Bible Alone. Now you’re just flailing and grasping at straws. Face it: it isn’t taught in Scripture; it is an entirely man-made, non-biblical doctrine conjured up by a disgruntled monk in the 16th century.

[fidelis]

Jesus said it. I believe it. That settles it. Thanks for playing.

[chickenlips]

Catholic Mariology is a symptom not the cause of problems within Roman Catholicism. The declarations of the Council of Trent locked the Church of Rome into aberrant beliefs. Luther and Calvin were basically trying to bring the RC back to orthodox beliefs, but that would have required the Church of Rome to give up vast power by yielding to Scripture. The five solas just don’t allow room for the Aristotelian humanism and dubious traditions that permeate the RC.

It’s no wonder the RC for centuries prevented the laity from having and reading the Scriptures. One only has to read Galatians to see that the Apostle Paul is addressing the same fundamental problem of reliance on works and merit that exist in the Church of Rome. Paul clearly thought the sinless life, atoning death and triumphant resurrection of Christ was totally sufficient for salvation; Rome not so much.

[PeterPrinciple]

The books of the Bible, including Revelation, were written individually, so this passage is speaking about that book.

---

You may think so but when you read the whole Bible, you will find it applies to the whole of God’s word.

The problem is you don’t think the Bible is God’s word but it written by men.

[Big Red Badger]

Agreed 💯.
Power grab of the Ages.
I’ve met many Caths that refuse reading the Bible as they are trusting the
‘Church’-——

[fidelis]

You may think so but when you read the whole Bible, you will find it applies to the whole of God’s word.

No, it does not. To force that kind of interpretation on it is ignorant (in the proper sense of the term).

The problem is you don’t think the Bible is God’s word but it written by men.

Gee, now you purport to be a mind reader and the judge of people's hearts. Are there no end to your talents? I can tell you that I believe no such thing but, being the supreme judge of others hearts, you would say I'm lying.

[fidelis]

I’ve met many Caths that refuse reading the Bible as they are trusting the ‘Church’

I would say that that is partially a reflection of the caliber of the Catholics you associate with. There are lazy and poorly taught Christians in every church, including "Prot" ones. I encounter them all the time.

[PeterPrinciple]

You may add or delete at your own risk as stated in the consequences. But read the consequences slowly and let your lips move.

[BipolarBob]

Maybe you should rethink your interpretation.

Backatcha. Jesus was no liar and no fool. But your interpretation would make Him one.

[BipolarBob]

Still doesn’t say anything about the Bible Alone.

And NO mention of the Catholic Church either. Or a Pope. I mean while we're applying your logic. Jesus and the Apostles were Jews (not Catholics). They were born Jews. They lived as Jews and died as Jews. Jews that lived to the see the prophecy fulfilled. And recognized the Messiah had come. The Lamb that taketh away the sins of the earth did His duty. No Catholicism involved. No Pope involved. Peter was married. Mary had children.

[fidelis]

Backatcha. Jesus was no liar and no fool. But your interpretation would make Him one.

On the contrary, it is your interpretation that would do so. He spoke as plainly as possible. "You are Peter (Greek Greek petros/Aramaic Kepha = Rock) and upon this rock (petra = Rock/Aramaic Kepha), I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

Can't get any plainer than that.

[fidelis]

Still doesn’t say anything about the Bible Alone.
--------------------------------
And NO mention of the Catholic Church either. Or a Pope. I mean while we're applying your logic. Jesus and the Apostles were Jews (not Catholics). They were born Jews. They lived as Jews and died as Jews. Jews that lived to the see the prophecy fulfilled. And recognized the Messiah had come. The Lamb that taketh away the sins of the earth did His duty. No Catholicism involved. No Pope involved. Peter was married. Mary had children.

LOL. Way to divert the subject at hand by scatter-shotting a lot of other topics. And here I am still waiting for the Scripture verse that says the Bible is sufficient for all that Christians need to believe. Surely such a supposedly foundational teaching should be found in the Bible! You show me where that verse is, and I'll show you where all these other things can be addressed in the Bible. Deal?

[BipolarBob]

Can't get any plainer than that.

How right you are. You are Peter (the pebble) and upon THIS ROCK (Christ) I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Here Jesus uses a metaphor of contrasts which His audience understood. They knew what He meant. A wordplay to emphasize that He (Jesus) is The Cornerstone of The Church. Again Catholic interpretation leads you astray.

[BipolarBob]

And here I am still waiting for the Scripture verse that says the Bible is sufficient for all that Christians need to believe.

The Bible is the acknowledged Word of God. It has importance. Deut. 4:2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.
Does your denomination add things that are not in the Bible? God said NOT to do that.

There are many verses extolling how pure Gods Word is and that it is a lamp unto our feet. Jesus met every one of Satans temptations with a "It is written". He did not say "Well, Satan the Catholic Church says . . . ". No He didn't.

[Big Red Badger]

John 20:30

Sufficient for Salvation
.
Bam!

[Big Red Badger]

2 Timothy 3:16-—
Double Bamm!

[fidelis]

You are Peter (the pebble) and upon THIS ROCK (Christ) I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Here Jesus uses a metaphor of contrasts which His audience understood. They knew what He meant. A wordplay to emphasize that He (Jesus) is The Cornerstone of The Church. Again Catholic interpretation leads you astray.

It is you that is missing the word-play here. Jesus was not speaking in Greek, he was speaking in Aramaic. In Aramaic, both occurrences of "Rock" in this passage would be the same: Kepha.

Petra indeed does mean small rock, but the reason different words were used here because in the Greek, "a" is a feminine ending. If Jesus would have meant to name Peter petra, he would have been giving him a girl's name.

[fidelis]

John 20:30 Sufficient for Salvation. Bam!
John 20:30: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book."

More like a desperate whimper than a "Bam!" As I mentioned above about the Book of Revelation, all of the books of the Bible were written individually. This includes John's Gospel, so this verse was intended to apply only to that book.

In addition to this, even if you add the next verse:

...but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

...this passage says nothing about the sufficiency of the Bible as a whole as a rule of faith. It doesn't even claim it for the Gospel of John, only that Jesus did other things that were not included in it. Also, that would mean we would only need the Gospel of John. I am sure you would agree that that would be ludicrous.

[Big Red Badger]

The Swordof the Spirit Which is
The ORD OF GOD !
Ephesians 6:13
.

Three verses cited and Fidelis is...
Well -—you know The Thing.
.
I think a Tradition against Prots instills
a certain deaf ear to the Spirit of God.
But Jesus came to set Captives Free...
Free Indeed Amigo !

[metmom]

Yeah, it can get plainer.

Peter is Petros, NOT Petra.

Jesus is Petra, acknowledged by both Peter and Paul.

1 Corinthians 10:1-5 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (Petra) that followed them, and the Rock (Petra) was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

Here's the Greek....

https://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm

1 Peter 2:4-8 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

Peter also calls Jesus the rock (petra) of offense.

https://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm