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 ...
Very good. And Protestants can be logical. Just not when they are being illogical.
I should note that a Pope can do all sorts of things correctly and teach all sorts of correct things in an uninfallible manner.
Preaching what others have preached is, in fact, oral tradition.
And it’s irrelevant that all they had was the OT. That’s because the NT hadn’t been written yet. They were living it and becoming part of it.
The verse in question only referred to what was in the Old Testament, everything else is just your extrapolation.
The Bereans were commended for searching Scripture to verify Paul’s message. And regardless of how much they had, just the OT, the principle is the same.
Maybe, but your extrapolation about the principle being the same certainly isn't valid. Unless, of course, you are referencing some oral tradition...
They went to the only sure and reliable source. Scripture. God’s word.
Only? You might have a point if scripture specifically says they didn't do anything else, but scripture failing to mention something happened doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Again, you are making conclusions outside of scripture. You seem to have quite an oral tradition you are relying on!
It’s pretty staggering when you think about it, that people would say what God breathed out and inspired is not good enough.
It's a shame that scripture doesn't say that it is sufficient. Then you might have a point. However, only your tenuous oral tradition is saying that.
Preaching what others have preached is, in fact, oral tradition.
And it’s irrelevant that all they had was the OT. That’s because the NT hadn’t been written yet. They were living it and becoming part of it.
The verse in question only referred to what was in the Old Testament, everything else is just your extrapolation.
The Bereans were commended for searching Scripture to verify Paul’s message. And regardless of how much they had, just the OT, the principle is the same.
Maybe, but your extrapolation about the principle being the same certainly isn't valid. Unless, of course, you are referencing some oral tradition...
They went to the only sure and reliable source. Scripture. God’s word.
Only? You might have a point if scripture specifically says they didn't do anything else, but scripture failing to mention something happened doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Again, you are making conclusions outside of scripture. You seem to have quite an oral tradition you are relying on!
It’s pretty staggering when you think about it, that people would say what God breathed out and inspired is not good enough.
It's a shame that scripture doesn't say that it is sufficient. Then you might have a point. However, without scripture explicitly saying what you want it to say, only your tenuous oral tradition is saying that.
(With apologies to Dr. Otternschlag)
Well played; Judy Tanuta
Love your tag line I’ve quoted it a few times.
A Pope in the 13th century, when things were going well and Rome seemed to be doing well said “No longer can Peter say ‘silver and gold have I none.’” His interlocutor retorted “Neither does he say ‘stand and walk.’”
What a burn.
Thought you’d like it.
I love learnin’ new things on FR!
Classic ‘Look Over THERE!’
Classic truth. One man’s ranting doesn’t subtract from what is the truth. You have it in your hand and still reject it all.
The Utah Mormons have an ‘Inspired’ Version.
That, in reality is a false statement as you well know.
It is called the Inspired Version. In book form, it did not originate within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
It was in manuscript form from 1833 till it’s first printing in 1867 by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of LDS.
One man’s imagination doesn’t ADD to what is the truth; either.
All true.
Well edited.
It was in manuscript form from 1833 till it’s first printing in 1867 by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of LDS.
Yup.
They got hold of it before BY and company could flee to Utah.
It's now SCRIPTURE for them, but NOT the LDS folks of Utah.
(But they got really good reasons for this.)
“It’s now SCRIPTURE for them, but NOT the LDS folks of Utah.”
Nice try, but no cigar.
A great many direct quotes from the Inspired Version are part of LDS scripture.
“They got hold of it before BY and company could flee to Utah.”
It’s not nice to play fast and loose with history. As you are well aware, “They” did not exist at the time. The manuscript remained in the hands of Emma Smith as it legally should have in my opinion.
Well, since the KJV (shady as it is) makes up 1/4 of the LDS 'Quad', you statement is true.
So true.
Too bad that Joe found this out too late.
After Smith was killed, the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints fell into confusion and disorganization over the question of succession. Several individuals emerged with claims to leadership and the church's presidency. This led to the formation of several small factions. After periods of debate, the majority of the church's members followed Brigham Young, who led them to the Great Basin area (in what is now Utah) as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Other leaders included Sidney Rigdon, James J. Strang, Lyman Wight, Alpheus Cutler, William Smith, and David Whitmer. In the aftermath of this disorganization of the church, the term "Mormon" gradually came to be used primarily in reference to those persons who followed Young and were members of the LDS Church. The remaining individuals—who still considered themselves part of Smith's original church—remained; many who were in scattered congregations throughout the American Midwest joined other factions. Others began forming themselves into a "reorganized" Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
After Smith's death, some Latter Day Saints believed that Smith had designated his eldest son, Joseph Smith III, as his successor; some of these individuals waited for young Joseph to take up his father's mantle. However, Smith III was only 11 years old at the time of his father's death; his mother, Emma Hale Smith, and their family remained in Nauvoo rather than moving to join any of the departing groups.
In the 1850s, groups of Midwestern Latter Day Saints who were unaffiliated with other Latter Day Saint factions began to come together. Leaders, including Jason W. Briggs and Zenas H. Gurley, Sr., began to call for the creation of a "New Organization" of the Latter Day Saint movement. They invited Smith III to lead their New Organization; he accepted only after he believed he received a personal spiritual confirmation that this was the appropriate course of action.
At a conference on April 6, 1860, at Amboy, Illinois, Smith III formally accepted the leadership of what was then known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. William Marks, former stake president of Nauvoo, served as Smith III's counselor in the reorganized First Presidency. The word "Reorganized" was added to the church's official name in 1872, mostly as a means of distinguishing it from the larger LDS Church, which at that time was involved in controversy with the U.S. government over its doctrine of plural marriage. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was often abbreviated "RLDS Church".
Speaking of organized religions without a leg to stand on.
...and doesn’t in any way excuse your attempt at deceit.
...and in all cases consider the source.
(shady as it is)
Your statement not mine or the Church of Jesus Christ. Past history notwithstanding.
I’m confident Joseph was never persuaded to deviate from what he knew to be true by direct revelation from the source of all truth.
Again when you believe other sources with an axe to grind you may just be conveniently deceived.
I don't attempt.
I either deceive or I don't.
(Who'd I fool this time?)
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.