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 ...
Otherwise, why make the distinction? Why point out that it was OT as if it weren’t good enough, or subservient to NT Scripture?
Because it is worthy of thought. It is the scripture they had. And we need to consider that.
You also need to do some introspections. That I post a simple fact and you are offended says a lot about you. Almost like liberals who are perpetually offended.
The problem with *sacred tradition* and infallibility is that if the teaching doesn’t line up with Scripture, it’s wrong.
If it does, it’s redundant and didn’t need to be repeated or be given the stamp of approval of some church council.
Then there’s the issue of being sure that those doctrines were allegedly held in the very early church, that they were indeed taught by the apostles, and that they were handed down faithfully and without change or corruption.
Without written records of such beliefs, there’s no way to verify so people are forced to take their church’s word for it.
And looking at how doctrine and theology and rules have changed in the last 2,000 years in Catholicism, I find it improbable that some were passed down that faithfully and without corruption.
Catholicism can’t even decide if priests should be able to get married and how to deal with homosexual sin and pedophilia within the clergy.
WHY would anyone think they could trust any other decisions or teachings they adhere to that are not explicitly stated in Scripture.
Which, for the record, remains unchanged for thousands of years as we have ancient texts that verify its changelessness.
I am not offended. Get over yourself.
You’re projecting too much if you can presume to know what I’m thinking.
When more than one person reads something that you posted in a certain way, it’s not everyone else with the communication problem.
Some people confuse “long time” with always. Many Catholics do not communicate with absolute precision.
Last I checked very few Catholics claim that what is done in 2024 (or 2023 or 2022) is precisely what was done in 67 in absolutely every way.
If it contradicts scripture it is wrong, if it covers precisely what is covered in scripture with precisely the same depth and nuance, it is redundant.
But there are lots of other cases. E.g. abortion falls under “thou shall not kill.”
The immaculate conception contradicts Scripture as does the claim Mary remained sinless.
Original Sin isn’t spelled out utterly and completely clearly in Scripture, and Scripture certainly doesn’t have a passage stating “Mary was conceived with original sin”.
That said, St. Thomas provisionally agreed with you, although St. Augustine provisionally made no comment, and Bl. Duns Scotus, of all people, ended up explaining how it all worked.
I guess all have sinned excludes Mary??
Scotus’ solution includes her in all sinning in Adam.
The English “all” is a very strong “all”-—a sort of philosophical all is the first sense.
In many other languages the equivalent of “all” is more of a statistical “all” as the first sense.
In some, the first sense may be as weak as “many.”
Adam, Eve, Christ, and Mary have different relations to Adam’s sin than all other people having a human nature.
(Human being is a tricky term to use when one is discussing any topic where Christ is a major concern).
The term "all" as used in Romans applies to everyone except Christ.
Both Old and New affirm people sin and have sinned.
To exempt Mary from any stain of sin and to imply she never, ever, ever sinned contradicts Scripture which is something Rome says it won't do.....except it did with the Immaculate Conception.
Sounds quite Mormon.
They, too, insist that the STH was good enough BEFORE J.Smith, but NOW it needs updating by the Book of Mormon, and Doctrines&Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.
Revelation chapters 1 thru 3.
Exodus 21:22
"If two men are fighting, and in the process hurt a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage, but she lives, then the man who injured her shall be fined whatever amount the woman's husband shall demand, and as the judges approve.
Lucy, this ‘splained it purty well to me...
Romans 5:12-21
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[a] because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass[b] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness[c] leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
...although it says ALL it does NOT say WOMEN!
18 Therefore, as one trespass[b] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness[c] leads to justification and life for all men.
While Clinton says that 'is' may be a bit iffy.
Eve relates to the sin of Adam differently than everyone else.
in post 451, Ealgeone rightly notes that Christ is excluded—even though he is not specifically mentioned as excluded.
Duns Scotus solution was that original sin would have naturally extended to Our Lady as well had not the grace of Christ sanctified her at the instant of Her conception, thus saving her in a particularly powerful way, and making Him her savior in a more fundamental way than anyone else.
So yes, the sin of Adam extends death to or towards Our Lady, but at the moment it would have impacted her, she was saved by Our Lord.
I’m sure it may be explained better and more precisely, but that is at least the general ball park of Duns Scotus solution.
Catholics crack me up.
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. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Then you might have a point.
It's a shame you don't know God's Word. Then you might have a clue.
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.