"If Our Lady makes a promise of any kind, we know it is God’s will, and is therefore, infallibly true. "
Church doctrine is that Public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. Appearances by Our Lady, or any other saint, fall into the category of Private Revelation – and Catholics are not obliged to believe it.
Is there some context for this quote? Perhaps a link? Because Our Lady is only going to promise things that are in full accord with Church teaching and thus, it could be infallible in that sense because Church teaching is infallible. The Church as far as I know, has made no formal teaching on any promise from Mary in an appartion. Rather, the Church declares an apparition and the message worthy of belief.
Let’s divide this up. If any saint in heaven were to make a promise then it would have to be God’s will, right? Otherwise they wouldn’t be saints in heaven.
But that’s a far cry from determining if some vision of a promise from a saint is actually a promise from a saint.
That’s correct – there is no infallible doctrine derived from any apparation.
True that. The reason I want to see the context and who said it is because it sounds a little like Ligouri from *Glories of Mary, *which many of our naysayers love to cherry pick from.
I am not sure context makes any difference as most of what it is claim that Mary ‘says’ comes from private revelation (as we can count on one hand what she says in Public Revelation).
Would you cite or link where this quote came from so we can discuss if it is relevant? I entered the quote in a search engine and only this thread here comes up. Briefly, although private revelation is not binding on anyone other than the recipient (and I’m not even sure about that), that doesn’t make it wrong per se. The Church afaik, does not explicitly teach the above quote. BUT the quote is not necessarily prima facia objectionable.
OK. you guys, enough is enough. :mad: Are you trying AGAIN to force Eilish Maura to believe in private revelation. I mean, that’s been done & done, over & over & OVER again. Now you’ve started it once more on this thread…"Does the Church teach this: If Our Lady makes a promise…WHOOPS, (smack myself in the head), It was Eilish Maura who started this thread. Sorry guys :o
And would you believe that she started yet another one today, called “Things Regarding Private Revelation Can Get Pretty Interesting” & THEN there was the one last week…“If You Don’t Believe in Appartitions, Are You Denying the Church”. & the week before…well, that’s enough for now.
Altogether now, let’s run through this one more time:
Public Revelation ended when the last Apostle died. Truths we received through public Revelation are part of our Deposit of Faith & must be believed.
Private Apparitions, on the other hand, are in the category that the Church calls Private Revelation. We may have faith in these
that the Church approves as “worthy of belief” (Fatima, Lourdes, etc.)…or…we **may NOT believe in them. **The Church, feels that the laity is prudent & gives us the choice.
Now, I’m sure that this particular problem that seems to involve the OP. in so many discussions & arguments has been settled & we’ll probably hear no more about it…at least from Eilish Maura.
Only her words in Scripture are infallibly true. All else is private revelation,
If that is a quote from another thread, does it ‘stand alone?’ Did somebody just come out of thin air, post those ‘exact’ words down out of the blue, and vanish?
So yes, context is important. If this was actually stated just as the OP puts it, that’s one thing. On the face of just those words, and nothing to explain the reasoning or the context, brought out of nowhere, one would certainly think, 'say what?"
But if this is what the OP ‘thought’ was being said, or if it’s an inference the OP drew, then it would be ‘interesting’ to see what was actually said, and why.
It was the opening line and is copied as it appeared.
That cannot possibly be Church teaching, because even if a report of an apparition is judged to be worthy of belief, that is not the same thing as judging that any words it may be said to have communicated are also worthy of belief. Words & apparitions don’t form a job lot - there can be a garbled message where there is an apparition of divine origin.
Then you should have no problem linking us to the thread & post that you quote from.
Yes, please do link this. We would really like to get to the bottom of this for everybody’s sake. Thank you.
It’s been 2 full days since I requested this link. Have you skedaddled again?
It may sound like I’m just being a jerk about insisting on the source and context, but I just want to give the best answer I can. That quote sounds like devotional language rather than catechism or official Church pronouncement language. There is simply lots more permissible leeway in devotional language–one is allowed to be poetical, flowery, and embellishing. Even as a straight quote from a private revelation, it is possible to square with Church teaching. That is, they are not at loggerheads automatically, That is why we want to know where it comes from. What if anything, is explicitly being promised? Is it promulagating a new teaching? Then there is a problem. Is it restating an established Church teaching? Then probably no problem.