It’s a good thing that we’re getting lots of rulings from Rome and the bishops on alleged supernatural events thanks to the new norms. Good job Cardinal Fernandez!
--> I like the ✅ and ❌ to visually help understand the ruling. I'm glad you didn't go with 😊 and 😠.
--> Was this supposed to be "... a declaration of either constat de supernaturalitate ('confirmed to be of 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 origin') or non constat de supernaturalitate ("confirmed to be of non-supernatural origin') ..."?
I hate to nitpick, but I think non constat de supernaturalitate means "not confirmed to be of supernatural origin" while constat de nonsupernaturalitate would be "confirmed to be of non-supernatural origin." It's the difference between something being unconfirmed and something being proven to have a natural explanation. You're right about the first one. So there used to be three classifications: confirmed to be supernatural, unconfirmed to be supernatural, and confirmed to be non-supernatural. Jimmy Akin had a good explanation somewhere, but I can't find it anymore.
Which apparitions of Medjugorje? There are kind of a lot of them… and despite attempts to suppress it by the local bishop, it seems to produce some good fruit. I don’t envy the DDF sorting that mess out even with the new options.
Ah, but demonstrably false relics have also produced "good fruit." (By "demonstrably false," I mean such things as multiple skulls of some saint venerated in the Middle Ages that each filled miracle books at the different shrines.) In my opinion, there's too much hokum associated with Medjugorje for it to be real.
I honestly don’t mind either way! It’s not essential to my spiritual life or any one else's (shrine fanatics included, even if they can’t imagine it). I just know it’s not my place to judge it and I’ll accept the ruling whatever it is.
Neither "non constat de supernaturalitate" nor "constat de non supernaturalitate" are listed in the six different options that are given in the new norms. Are there now 8 different options for the DDF to chose from? These decisions feel like they are more in line with the old norms.
I'm curious what level of magisterial authority is being enacted when a judgement is made? I assume it's not infallible. Can that judgement be changed down the road?
Positive first: it is good to have some clarity on the 'Our Lady of All Nations' determination - assuming that was what was provided. It's helpful. People deserve a reasonable answer not just authority speaking in the absence of facts.
But: how do these determinations help the faithful? What do people care about? They care if something is real or fake. Cardinal Fernandez and his new rules refuse to answer the only question that matters.
These determinations undermine the local Bishop, because what the Bishop - the one who has actual care of souls - says doesn't matter. No, we have to wait for Cardinal Fernandez to make a snap judgement, not about whether something is real but whether it is useful.
I'm sorry, this top down "fill out the right form so we can refuse to answer" stuff isn't Catholic!
I think this actually gives bishops more leeway than previously given. People do care about whether an apparition is fake or not and sometimes the Gamaliel principle is the best way to judge the veracity of an apparition. The option for a ‘nihl obstat’ is right in the bishop’s wheelhouse of authority to determine and leaves the option to up or downgrade should new perspectives come to light.
It’s a good thing that we’re getting lots of rulings from Rome and the bishops on alleged supernatural events thanks to the new norms. Good job Cardinal Fernandez!
--> I like the ✅ and ❌ to visually help understand the ruling. I'm glad you didn't go with 😊 and 😠.
--> Was this supposed to be "... a declaration of either constat de supernaturalitate ('confirmed to be of 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 origin') or non constat de supernaturalitate ("confirmed to be of non-supernatural origin') ..."?
Thanks so much for catching that mistake. I've corrected it
I hate to nitpick, but I think non constat de supernaturalitate means "not confirmed to be of supernatural origin" while constat de nonsupernaturalitate would be "confirmed to be of non-supernatural origin." It's the difference between something being unconfirmed and something being proven to have a natural explanation. You're right about the first one. So there used to be three classifications: confirmed to be supernatural, unconfirmed to be supernatural, and confirmed to be non-supernatural. Jimmy Akin had a good explanation somewhere, but I can't find it anymore.
Jimmy did a good, short podcast about it on Mysterious World. I think he will have a new, longer one about it this week.
That's a good distinction. I'll change it
What I want to know is, what is Cardinal Fernandez looking at?
Probably something 𝘯𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦.
I believe he's looking at this: https://westminstercathedral.blogspot.com/2008/01/tympanum.html
Probably thinking, "I wonder if it's too late to put a Rupnik piece up there for everyone to admire."
Have there been any such judgements on Medjugorje?
Good, now please declare Medjugorje as false apparitions so we can put that to rest.
I think we need a betting pool on which of the six options it would be classified as.
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/after-new-norms-will-the-vatican
Which apparitions of Medjugorje? There are kind of a lot of them… and despite attempts to suppress it by the local bishop, it seems to produce some good fruit. I don’t envy the DDF sorting that mess out even with the new options.
Ah, but demonstrably false relics have also produced "good fruit." (By "demonstrably false," I mean such things as multiple skulls of some saint venerated in the Middle Ages that each filled miracle books at the different shrines.) In my opinion, there's too much hokum associated with Medjugorje for it to be real.
I honestly don’t mind either way! It’s not essential to my spiritual life or any one else's (shrine fanatics included, even if they can’t imagine it). I just know it’s not my place to judge it and I’ll accept the ruling whatever it is.
I hope you keep this going! I would enjoy seeing apparition updates on a regular basis.
Neither "non constat de supernaturalitate" nor "constat de non supernaturalitate" are listed in the six different options that are given in the new norms. Are there now 8 different options for the DDF to chose from? These decisions feel like they are more in line with the old norms.
I'm curious what level of magisterial authority is being enacted when a judgement is made? I assume it's not infallible. Can that judgement be changed down the road?
Positive first: it is good to have some clarity on the 'Our Lady of All Nations' determination - assuming that was what was provided. It's helpful. People deserve a reasonable answer not just authority speaking in the absence of facts.
But: how do these determinations help the faithful? What do people care about? They care if something is real or fake. Cardinal Fernandez and his new rules refuse to answer the only question that matters.
These determinations undermine the local Bishop, because what the Bishop - the one who has actual care of souls - says doesn't matter. No, we have to wait for Cardinal Fernandez to make a snap judgement, not about whether something is real but whether it is useful.
I'm sorry, this top down "fill out the right form so we can refuse to answer" stuff isn't Catholic!
I think this actually gives bishops more leeway than previously given. People do care about whether an apparition is fake or not and sometimes the Gamaliel principle is the best way to judge the veracity of an apparition. The option for a ‘nihl obstat’ is right in the bishop’s wheelhouse of authority to determine and leaves the option to up or downgrade should new perspectives come to light.
Where is the confirmation of Medjugorje or Garanbandal??? These have more evidence that any of the above .