BREAKING: Pope Francis will consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on March 25

[PhuturePriest]

19 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

It's not a loss of sleep, at least not for me.  I know that others have different temperaments and they might turn to fear and despair over a lot of things going on right now.  But the overall message is that of hope.

No, certainly not.  But I'd also like to refute the premise that there hasn't been "actual war within the western world".  Actual war takes many forms.  

We're looking at the world, not just the west.  There has not been historically unprecedented peace...

There are some intellectual liberties granted to us, but this is not one of them. 

Nor do I understand the desire to preclude oneself from the many graces that accompany belief in, and devotion to, approved private revelation and apparitions.  

Do you wear a brown scapular?

Or do you just mean prophetical private revelation, such as some of the writings of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, and of Our Lady of Fatima, and of Our Lady of Akita, and of Our Lord to St. Faustina, and dozens of others?

You are quite wrong on this. No Catholic is required to believe in private or Marian apparitions. If you can show me a Church document saying otherwise I will change my mind. 

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, PhuturePriest said:

You are quite wrong on this. No Catholic is required to believe in private or Marian apparitions. If you can show me a Church document saying otherwise I will change my mind. 

I didn't say that Catholics are required to believe in private revelations.  I said that Catholics are not allowed to just disregard all of them, wholesale.  At least not morally.  There's not a set rule that you can't do that, but it flies in the face of established moral tradition (little T).

There is a source that I have in mind, but I can't remember specifically where it came from.  It was a pope or a Doctor of the Church.  After I find it I'll post it here for you to see.  

But that's why the Church judges these on a case-by-case basis, and offers judgement so that the faithful have some authoritative guidance.  Just as you should avoid private revelation that the Church has completely condemned, so you should not entirely dismiss private revelation that the Church has enthusiastically approved.

To refuse to say the rosary would be a grave injustice - and the rosary is a result of private revelation.  You can't just dismiss the rosary.

[Nunsuch]

10 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

To refuse to say the rosary would be a grave injustice - and the rosary is a result of private revelation.  You can't just dismiss the rosary.

But no one is *required* to say the rosary. [Exceptions might be a religious community whose customary or rule requires it. But this doesn't apply to the vast majority of Catholics.]

[fides' Jack]

1 minute ago, Nunsuch said:

But no one is *required* to say the rosary. [Exceptions might be a religious community whose customary or rule requires it. But this doesn't apply to the vast majority of Catholics.]

I don't disagree.  

Nevertheless, the rosary is necessary for the salvation of many souls, because it's clear that God has ordained that the faithful should be devoted to it, in general.  

It's also not required to go to confession more than once a year.  But, in general, especially today, people who only go to confession once a year are much more likely to lose salvation.

In that sense, it's not required, but it's necessary.

Certainly, if I only went to confession once a year, I would be eternally damned.  I'm not afraid to admit I'm a huge sinner.  I need the regular graces of the sacrament of confession.

[Nunsuch]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

I don't disagree.  

Nevertheless, the rosary is necessary for the salvation of many souls, because it's clear that God has ordained that the faithful should be devoted to it, in general.  

It's also not required to go to confession more than once a year.  But, in general, especially today, people who only go to confession once a year are much more likely to lose salvation.

In that sense, it's not required, but it's necessary.

Certainly, if I only went to confession once a year, I would be eternally damned.  I'm not afraid to admit I'm a huge sinner.  I need the regular graces of the sacrament of confession.

But this is just your opinion. It may be valid for you, both about the rosary and Confession. But it is not the official teaching of the Church, so it is not necessarily necessary. One can have a rich and deep prayer life without the Rosary, which does not deny its efficacy for those who find it helpful. 

[cruciatacara]

2 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

But this is just your opinion. It may be valid for you, both about the rosary and Confession. But it is not the official teaching of the Church, so it is not necessarily necessary. One can have a rich and deep prayer life without the Rosary, which does not deny its efficacy for those who find it helpful. 

I agree @Nunsuch and despite what @fides' Jacksays, one can go to Confession once a year and still not commit 'mortal' sins in between. The conditions for a mortal sin require consent to a grave matter while also knowing it is a grave matter. Not everyone is running around doing this. Frequent confession makes people feel good but it isn't absolutely necessary unless one has a perpetually bad habit for a particular mortal sin I suppose. Wouldn't it be better just to avoid occasions of mortal sin? I mean, if you know it is a grave matter, don't consent to it!

[fides' Jack]

3 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

But this is just your opinion. It may be valid for you, both about the rosary and Confession. But it is not the official teaching of the Church, so it is not necessarily necessary.

It is not just my opinion. 

It is generally true that the rosary is necessary, because God has made it so.  It is not that way in all cases for all people, but it is generally so.  Without the rosary, many of us would not be alive today to give thanks and praise to God.  God saw fit to use the rosary to fulfill a number of His promises to us, and in the end, you will see that God saw fit to save mankind through His Blessed Mother, through the rosary.

It is also true that some people who refuse to pray the rosary refuse at the same time the graces necessary for their own salvation.

It might not be defined dogma, but it is accepted tradition, and reinforced by many saints and popes.  A catholic cannot casually toss that aside, from a moral standpoint.

1 hour ago, cruciatacara said:

Frequent confession makes people feel good but

I can't even... 

[fides' Jack]

To clarify (From: https://www.markmallett.com/blog/can-you-ignore-private-revelation/):

Quote

 

Of the individual recipient of divine revelation, Pope Benedict XIV said:

Are they to whom a revelation is made, and who are certain it comes from God, bound to give a firm assent thereto? The answer is in the affirmative… —Heroic Virtue, Vol III, p.390

As for the rest of us, he goes on to say:

He to whom that private revelation is proposed and announced, ought to believe and obey the command or message of God, if it be proposed to him on sufficient evidence… For God speaks to him, at least by means of another, and therefore requires him to believe; hence it is, that he is bound to believe God, Who requires him to do so. —Ibid. p. 394

Regarding that which is uncertain, however, he adds:

One may refuse assent to “private revelation” without direct injury to Catholic Faith, as long as he does so, “modestly, not without reason, and without contempt.” —Ibid. p. 397

 

And from Scripture:

Quote

Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good. (1 Thess 5:20)

 

9 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

If you can show me a Church document saying otherwise I will change my mind. 

Pope Benedict XIV, see above.  You cannot just wholly disregard all private revelation.

Edited March 22, 2022 by fides' Jack
Giving source

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

To clarify (From: https://www.markmallett.com/blog/can-you-ignore-private-revelation/):

And from Scripture:

 

Pope Benedict XIV, see above.  You cannot just wholly disregard all private revelation.

The quote by Benedict refers to the person to whom the revelation is made, not everyone as a whole. It’s also not a Magisterial document, so even if it did it doesn’t disprove my point. 
 

You’re making a lot of claims here that are not backed up by the Church. The Church does not “enthusiastically support” private revelation, it never even declares that they truly happened. It merely claims that x revelation/apparition is acceptable to believe in. No one is required, full stop, to pray the Rosary or believe that Our Lady of Fatima is a genuine apparition. Your hardcore insistence on claims like the Rosary being necessary prove my point all the more that we need to be careful about apparitions because they can easily replace our faith. Praying the Rosary is good, and even beneficial, but it is in no way necessary for salvation. One does not need to believe an iota of Fatima to be a good and holy Catholic. These are to aid our faith, not to become foundations for them. And the moment we start saying things like “necessary”, they have become foundations rather than aids. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by PhuturePriest

[MIKolbe]

1 Tm 6:20-21

[fides' Jack]

11 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

The quote by Benedict refers to the person to whom the revelation is made, not everyone as a whole. It’s also not a Magisterial document, so even if it did it doesn’t disprove my point. 

Read it again.  It addresses 3 categories of people - the first is as you say.  The second is hearing it from others who did supposedly get the message from a supernatural source, the third addresses everyone as a whole. 

I never said there was a magisterial document saying anything.  In fact I admitted since the beginning of this particular issue that it wasn't codified, but it does become a moral issue.  I said, and gave a source for, the tradition (again small T) that we can't just wholesale disregard private revelation, which is something you said you do.

11 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

You’re making a lot of claims here that are not backed up by the Church.

Name one, specifically.  The one immediately below I've refuted already.

I think you believe I'm saying something I'm not.  Because you're arguing against points that I'm not making.

11 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

The Church does not “enthusiastically support” private revelation

It's a subjective term, and a subjective answer.  However, if you say that the Church doesn't enthusiastically support the rosary, or the miraculous medal, or the brown scapular, or the Divine Mercy chaplet, you're not being honest, with yourself or on this forum.

11 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

It merely claims that x revelation/apparition is acceptable to believe in.

"Worthy of belief" is the phrase.  Not "acceptable to believe in".

That's the authoritative side, and is usually only applied to specific messages, and not particularly to devotions.  The Church does far more in regards to certain private revelation, such as the rosary, and the miraculous medal, and the brown scapular, and a host of others.

These things are necessary, inasmuch as God has seen fit to use them and through them bring about salvation.  They are not strictly necessary for the salvation of all particular souls.  Adherence to public revelation is what is strictly necessary to be a Catholic, even a good Catholic, and attain salvation.  But a good Catholic cannot in good conscience just dismiss all private revelation without a good reason.

11 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

No one is required, full stop, to pray the Rosary or believe that Our Lady of Fatima is a genuine apparition.

Agreed.  I never said they were.

11 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Your hardcore insistence on claims like the Rosary being necessary prove my point all the more that we need to be careful about apparitions because they can easily replace our faith.

The rosary is necessary, in the sense I've now tried to describe several times, according to St. Alphonsus Liguori, and Pope St. John Paul II, and Servant of God Sr. Lucia of Fatima, and many others. 

The problem is that you're only looking at the strict legal side, which is kind of ironic, given your original statement in this thread:

Quote

The loss of sleep by so many over an alleged event the Church doesn't require us to believe in and whether the wishes of this alleged event were fulfilled simply baffle me, especially since the arguments become so stringently legalistic and absurd.

Your arguments regarding the rosary are stringently legalistic and absurd.

I'm not saying you should base your faith on the rosary.  But neither should you dismiss it altogether.  Really the only time it should be dismissed entirely is if your spiritual director actually told you to.

11 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Praying the Rosary is good, and even beneficial, but it is [not] necessary for salvation.

Changed to be technically true.  In the strict sense, I agree, and have admitted so since the beginning of this particular argument.  In some sense, it is.  In the strict sense, again, it's not.

11 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

One does not need to believe an iota of Fatima to be a good and holy Catholic.

Agreed.

11 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

These are to aid our faith, not to become foundations for them.

Agreed.

11 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

And the moment we start saying things like “necessary”, they have become foundations rather than aids. 

Which is why I clarified my use of the term "necessary" every time I used it.

Edited March 22, 2022 by fides' Jack

[fides' Jack]

Quote

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.

 

[fides' Jack]

On the topic of the rosary, I want to build on Mark Mallett's analogy.  Public revelation (Divine Revelation; Sacred Scripture and Tradition) is the foundation of our faith.  It's like the car on the road.  We're the driver.  We know the road is narrow - Christ Himself told us as much.  Private revelation, like the rosary, is like the headlights.  For centuries, when the Church was still in midday, they were not as necessary, you could see where you were going and follow the road without the headlights.  Different conditions made them more or less necessary throughout the day, when we were weathering storms.  Now strictly speaking, it was possible to attain salvation, and still is, without the headlights.  That has always been true, and remains true.  The longer into the day we travel, the more difficult and treacherous the road becomes, and the steeper the cliff on either side of the path.  And now, we are in the night.  It should be clear to see this just by looking at the world outside the window.  The closer to the end we get, the darker the world becomes.  It's almost pitch black now.  And even with our headlights, visibility is constrained to just a few feet in front of us, because now it's dark AND we're in the middle of a storm.  Without the headlights visibility is absolute zero, unless someone is given a special grace that most people don't have.

Only a fool would turn off his headlights. 

And, to be fair, I really don't think that @PhuturePriest completely understood the implications of his statement regarding dismissing all private revelation as a whole when he made the statement, which is why he doubled-down by arguing against things I never said.  It's my understanding he's in the seminary (I could be wrong?), and I find it extremely unlikely that he is foolish enough to disregard the rosary completely.  In fact, I think most, if not all of you contributing here have not completely disregarded the rosary. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by fides' Jack

[little2add]

found this on the phat home page:

https://cruxnow.com/last-week-in-the-church/2022/03/pope-to-consecrate-russia-to-immaculate-heart-of-mary-last-week-in-the-church-with-john-allen-jr

 

[fides' Jack]

I am deeply, deeply troubled at the wording used in other languages of the consecration prayer that has been published.  Here's the Italian, which the pope will be using:

https://www.vaticannews.va/it/papa/news/2022-03/papa-preghiera-integrale-atto-consacrazione-russia-ucraina-maria.html

I'm not a linguist, but even I can translate "terra del Cielo" with my underwhelming Latin skills.  The English version of the consecration says, "Queen of Heaven", so why are we praying to the "land in Heaven" (or possibly "earth in the sky")?

One site I read claimed that this is an actual title of the pachamama.

If that's truly the case, this consecration is satanic.

Other people are saying that the bad wording is also in the Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, and German versions of the consecration prayer.

What in the world is going on?