"Habemus Pappam" No More?

[HoundedbyHeaven]

There are more than a dozen prophecies as well as end-time prophecies presented by the Roman Catholic Church since its foundation. The most recent inclusion to the list (although not officially declared) is the Marian prophecy declared at Fatima nearly a century ago.

A lot of approved revelations have followed the Marian Apparitions at Fatima, Portugal. One of the popular ones are the Divine Mercy Apparitions to St. Faustina Kowalska.

I'm not certain what you meant by "not officially declared", but the Marian Apparitions at Fatima were approved.

Peace.

[brownprose]

A lot of approved revelations have followed the Marian Apparitions at Fatima, Portugal. One of the popular ones are the Divine Mercy Apparitions to St. Faustina Kowalska.

yes and whatever truth there is to these revelations should simply be a matter of personal choice...to believe or not believe. personally, i am still skeptical not because i am not catholic (but was once a catholic) because i find these apparitions no less different from the apparitions we read or see in the papers.

I'm not certain what you meant by "not officially declared", but the Marian Apparitions at Fatima were approved.

Peace.

i see, i didnt know that. I recall Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) once told the Catholic flock to not bother so much about these apparitions (like the Fatima) as they matter little to the catholic faith. I couldn't find that article now but found nonetheless a similar declaration:

Cardinal Ratzinger affirms that "ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation has three elements: the message contains nothing contrary to faith or morals; it is lawful to make it public; and the faithful are authorised to accept it with prudence. Such a message can be a genuine help in understanding the Gospel and living it better at a particular moment in time; therefore it should not be disregarded. It is a help which is offered, but which one is not obliged to use." (source: http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/20...00p10_227.html)

From the above statement, one can surmise that Ratzinger was/is himself a skeptic about these revelations and was probably among those who questioned the acceptance of such visions by the church.

Another interesting find is: "In November 11, 1984, as reported in the Pauline Catholic magazine Jesus, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that he had "read the text of the Third Secret." When asked why he had not revealed it, he replied that "in the judgment of previous Popes, it adds nothing to what Christians must know respecting what is stated in the Book of Revelation." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_lady_of_fatima).

But then again, I am not sure whether or not the fatima apparition was approved - but i can only agree with Ratzinger that all there is to an unshakable faith is to believe more on the gospel than achieving the same from private revelations.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

...From the above statement, one can surmise that Ratzinger was/is himself a skeptic about these revelations and was probably among those who questioned the acceptance of such visions by the church.

I honestly cannot see why such is the case. The phrase "...therefore it should not be disregarded...", I believe, argues against a claim of skepticism in then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger towards approving revelations found to be authentic.

As a matter of fact, when he was still Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the future Pope Benedict XVI attempted to interpret the Third Secret of Fatima in a theological commentary (click this-- http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...fatima_en.html -- to read). This commentary clearly indicate his acceptance of the approved revelation.

Another interesting find is: "In November 11, 1984, as reported in the Pauline Catholic magazine Jesus, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that he had "read the text of the Third Secret." When asked why he had not revealed it, he replied that "in the judgment of previous Popes, it adds nothing to what Christians must know respecting what is stated in the Book of Revelation." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_lady_of_fatima).

Again, I cannot see why this implies a skepticism in then Cardinal Ratzinger towards approving revelations found to be authentic. He is merely agreeing to the justifications of the previous popes in not revealing the secret until 2000.

...but i can only agree with Ratzinger that all there is to an unshakable faith is to believe more on the gospel than achieving the same from private revelations.

I agree. However, I cannot find an assertion of the former cardinal that belief in approved revelations strengthens faith just as much as belief in the Gospel does. What I do find however is that "...such a message can be a genuine help in understanding the Gospel and living it better at a particular moment in time."

Thank you.

Peace.

[brownprose]

@ HoundedbyHeaven

yes you are right.

But this leads me to ask further why such revelations are necessary specially for a religion that is dogmatically rich and why such revelations seem to have been placed above the gospels or the bible itself (the source of all revelations).

I wonder why such prophesies are so designed to imply that things are gonna happen exactly the way it was written? Remember when I said about the Immutable Destiny? Does it always have to be case?

Just purely the academics of it...no argument intended.

[newgal80]

I am not so familiar with the topic. is there a summary of the article

[HoundedbyHeaven]

yes you are right. But this leads me to ask further why such revelations are necessary specially for a religion that is dogmatically rich and why such revelations seem to have been placed above the gospels or the bible itself (the source of all revelations).

Again, the Catholic Church does not teach that revelations necessary, only useful and helpful, as I've repeatedly pointed out. And neither does She consider them superior to Revelation, God forbid.

I wonder why such prophesies are so designed to imply that things are gonna happen exactly the way it was written? Remember when I said about the Immutable Destiny? Does it always have to be case?

From the commentaries of Catholics who have studied closely far more revelations than I have, we've noticed the attachment of certain conditions that determine how foretold events will unfold or how these will not unfold-- and these conditions are none other than acts of repentance. Such conditions are essentially no different to the warnings of the Old Testament prophets sent by God to morally bankrupt cities He is about to destroy. In other words, things may not happen exactly as these were foretold.

However, let's explore our ideas on the mutability of the future. Do you assert that all future events are mutable? Do you assert that all future events foretold in Scripture are not certain?

Thank you for bringing up this topic, by the way, I'm loving every exchange of it (hehehe).

Peace.

[pijavier]

prophecies are not predictions. one time i was in a meeting (Bible study) and the guy leading it said somting to this visitor and tumpak kaayo, the guy broke down in tears.

he simply said something like, God is going to take you to different places, i see you on an airplane and someone who cares about you will you to the airport in the family car. You have a gap between this person but you will mend things up before you leave.

The guy tells us that his work is taking him to Japan tomorrow and that his dad was taking him to the airport but they were in a big fight and he was thinking of moving out of the house.

It gave us goosebumps after knowing that.

The guest speaker did not know the visitor, they just met there.

Is that classified as prophecy?

[brownprose]

Again, the Catholic Church does not teach that revelations necessary, only useful and helpful, as I've repeatedly pointed out. And neither does She consider them superior to Revelation, God forbid.

i think so too...problem is maybe with me coz i see it differently.

From the commentaries of Catholics who have studied closely far more revelations than I have, we've noticed the attachment of certain conditions that determine how foretold events will unfold or how these will not unfold-- and these conditions are none other than acts of repentance. Such conditions are essentially no different to the warnings of the Old Testament prophets sent by God to morally bankrupt cities He is about to destroy. In other words, things may not happen exactly as these were foretold.

i share the same views as well...aptly/simply put it, the wraths spoken of by the prophets/visionaries only happen when things go wrong later.

However, let's explore our ideas on the mutability of the future. Do you assert that all future events are mutable? Do you assert that all future events foretold in Scripture are not certain?

Yes...which brings me to my previous answer [and to the assertion of the catholic church about "repentance or wrath"] that prophecies only happen when things go wrong.

Prophecies (as you pointed out) are "warnings" of what is yet to come when people choose to stay or lead a sinful life.

[On a personal note, what if things go right? and when that happens, it would make the prophets become false prophets, wouldn't they? ]

Thank you for bringing up this topic, by the way, I'm loving every exchange of it (hehehe).

Peace.

the pleasure is mine as well, sir.

[teebee]

more, more more!

i like this thread....

veru informative...

[pijavier]

ona different note. Try and research about the 9/11 prophecies, daghan man d ay...