Your new questions presuppose several issues I addressed in my last post. Before moving forward, could you respond to those points? They’re foundational to the comparisons you’re making here.
I just want to know if you believe the magic parchment claims.
Cade, asking for an answer to a new question while completely ignoring the analysis in my last post is an attempt to reset the conversation.
We were in the middle of evaluating the actual evidence. You presented a Medjugorje message as a “red flag,” and the text itself showed that your description of it was incorrect. I also laid out your own statements in a chart to show that the criteria you’re using are subjective expectations, not objective Catholic discernment principles.
Those points are foundational. Without addressing them, any new question—including the parchment comparison—simply repeats the same problem: evaluating claims without established principles.
I will give you a direct answer about the parchment. But out of respect for the discussion we were already having, please respond to the textual corrections and the criteria chart from my earlier post first. Those need to be addressed before moving forward.
Yes. Your analyses is correct. I’m moving on from the circular conversation that we were having prior.
My reply is Hebrews 1:1, “In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, He spoke to us through a Son, whom He made heir of all things and through whom He created the Universe, who is the refulgence of His glory, the very imprint of His being, and who sustains all things by His mighty word.” It goes on to say, He is “far superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is more excellent than theirs.”
You and I agree with this. And that is what is important. Mary’s soul magnifies the Lord (Luke 1:46).
I know this does not answer your chart to your liking. You would like me to admit that I am wrong. And it is not that I am above admitting when I am wrong. Believing in Marian Apparitions is subjective. It is very hard to prove an Apparition.
I am not trying to disprove the Apparition, but rather better understand why you do believe it. And you are trying to understand why I do not believe it. And you disagree with my reasoning for not believing it. And even make assumptions about my claims that I am not making myself actually.
Hebrews 1 ends by saying that “the office of Angels is to minister to God for our salvation” (John Chrysostom’s critique of verse 14).
So, forgive me when I am skeptical of secret messages and worldly predictions. These things seem to be more about the apparition than it is about the salvation of souls, though I know that sprinkled in are messages of conversion and salvation. I am not disputing that.
What are red flags? It is now in style to talk about green flags, when it comes to relationships. If someone has red flags about a particular individuals, it does not mean that that individual is therefore invalid to Marry (or date in today’s culture). But, if something later happens or is revealed about something or someone, there are often red flags that were overlooked.
The parchment claim is just another red flag for me? Does it invalidate the claim as authentic? No. But, does it cause me to pause and question the validity of the claim? It does.
Just like if a friend likes a guy and I have concerns, it does not mean that I have a right to say what she has to believe about this individual or what she should do. It also does not meant that my concerns are a hundred percent accurate. Does this make sense?
Cade, just to be clear — and I’ve been consistent about this throughout — I’m not trying to understand why you don’t believe Medjugorje. I’m asking you to address the specific claims you made, such as calling it false prophecy, saying God doesn’t send Mary to deliver messages, and asserting that Mary “would never” say certain things. Those are objective assertions, not neutral non‑belief, and that’s why I asked you to engage the criteria and the textual corrections. I’m not asking you to admit you’re wrong. I’m asking you to address the specific points I raised — the textual correction of the Medjugorje message you quoted, the criteria chart showing the difference between your subjective expectations and Catholic discernment principles, your universal claims about what Mary “would never” say or do, and the red‑flag framework you were using. Those were all drawn directly from your own words; there were no assumptions involved.
As for subjectivity: yes, private revelation is not binding, but discernment is not purely subjective. The Church uses theological, historical, and spiritual criteria to evaluate claims. My point was simply that your stated reasons — “red flags,” “worldly,” “sounds human” — don’t correspond to any of those criteria.
If there’s a specific claim you believe I misrepresented, feel free to point it out. Otherwise, the issues I raised still stand.
Hebrews 1 concerns public revelation, which we both agree is complete. The questions I raised were about private revelation, discernment criteria, and the specific claims you made about what Mary “would never” say or do. Luke 1:46 is beautiful, and of course Mary magnifies the Lord, but neither passage addresses the points I raised — the textual correction of the Medjugorje message you quoted, the criteria chart showing the difference between your subjective expectations and Catholic discernment principles, your universal claims about what Mary “would never” say or do, or the red‑flag framework you were using. Those were the issues I was asking you to engage.
Thank you for the clarification. Just to be precise: the conversation wasn’t circular — I addressed each of your claims directly. That included the textual correction of the Medjugorje message you quoted, the criteria chart showing the difference between your subjective expectations and Catholic discernment principles, your universal claims about what Mary “would never” say or do, and the red‑flag framework you were using. You chose not to engage those points, which is completely fine, but that’s why the discussion stalled.
I’m happy to answer your new question about the parchment. I just need you to address those earlier points first — the textual correction, the criteria chart, the universal claims, and the red‑flag criteria — so we’re not evaluating new claims on an undefined foundation.
If you’d like to revisit those issues, I’m ready to continue the conversation.
Assertions that are opinions based on Sacred Scripture. And some of the reasons why I am skeptical.
Do you believe that popularity of a claim does not sway certain conclusions? Have there been alleged Marian Apparitions as popular that have been deemed invalid?
Actually they do if you read some of the concerns. They might not use the same simplistic terminology that I use, but they do have similar concerns.
[qutoe]
Hebrews 1 concerns public revelation, which we both agree is complete. The questions I raised were about private revelation, discernment criteria, and the specific claims you made about what Mary “would never” say or do.
[/quote]
Fair. You are really stuck on that assumption that I made. In which I admitted maybe went too far.
Agree it is beautiful. As far as not addressing your points, I already stated that I am unsure at this point what your points are.
You are relentless, I will give you that.
I will just assume that you do believe the parchment claims (which is fine). Just as I have friends who believe Joseph Smith’s claims are true. I am not trying to convince you that either claim is false. I am simply sharing why I do not believe in the claims. And you are free to disagree with my reasoning for not believing.
The concerns you listed — “red flags,” “worldly,” “sounds human” — don’t correspond to the Church’s discernment criteria. The Church evaluates alleged private revelation using theological consistency, historical coherence, spiritual fruits, and the moral character of the visionary. None of those criteria map onto the subjective impressions you listed. That’s why I laid out your own statements in the criteria chart: to show that the standards you’re using are personal expectations, not objective Catholic principles. Saying they “correspond” because you can find vaguely similar concerns somewhere doesn’t establish that they are actual criteria — it only restates your personal impressions in different words.
Calling Medjugorje “false prophecy,” saying God doesn’t send or authorize Mary to deliver messages, and asserting that Mary “would never” say certain things are not neutral opinions. They’re objective theological claims. Saying they are “based on Scripture” doesn’t yet explain the principle behind them — it only states the conclusion again, and it doesn’t address the rest of what I wrote in that sentence about why those claims require engagement with the criteria and the textual corrections.
My question has been about that underlying principle. If Scripture is the basis for your claim, then the principle should be easy to articulate:
You believe that the Holy Trinity chose Mary for the greatest instrumental mediation — delivering God the Word to the world, so that souls might be brought back or closer to Him. What theological principle lies behind your belief that it would be “a step too far” for Them to choose Her for a lesser instrumental mediation, such as delivering messages to the world for the same purpose?
You also haven’t addressed the Medjugorje message you cited as a “red flag,” or the fact that the text itself showed that your description of it was incorrect. And you haven’t addressed the criteria chart, which laid out your own statements to show that the criteria you’re using are subjective expectations, not objective Catholic discernment principles.
If you’d like to name the principle you’re using, and address the textual correction of the Medjugorje message, I’m ready to continue the conversation. And I’m happy to answer your new question about the parchment — I just need you to address those earlier points first so we’re not evaluating new claims on an undefined foundation.