Unpause
Secrets. Predictions. And magical parchment with secret messages that only certain individuals can decipher. I believe Mary can/might visit individuals to draw them closer to our Lord, but not to give them secret knowledge.
Pause 
1 Like
I like that Pause button.
Cade, “secret knowledge” is not a different category from “messages.” If Mary communicates content to a visionary — whether that content is immediately public or meant to be disclosed later — it is still a message. The Church classifies all such communication as private revelation. The term “secret” refers only to the timing of disclosure, not to a different kind of communication.
So when you say, “Mary might visit individuals to draw them closer to our Lord, but not to give them secret knowledge,” you’re separating two things that Catholic theology does not separate. Drawing someone closer to Christ through communicated content is precisely what a message is. If Mary gives information, instruction, warning, exhortation, or insight — even if it is meant for later disclosure — that is a message.
This is why your distinction doesn’t resolve the question I asked. The issue is not whether you personally find certain alleged messages implausible. The issue is the theological principle behind your universal claim that God does not send or authorize Mary to deliver messages at all.
Personal discomfort with “secrets,” “predictions,” or “magical parchment” is not a theological principle. It explains your preferences, not God’s action.
So the question remains:
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?
If you have a principle that actually grounds your belief, I’m happy to hear it. If you don’t have one, that’s fine — just say so.
Rather than go around and around and around again and again and again, I will just say that there are different types of message claims. That is a fact. You can lump them all together into one category, I don’t care.
I have already addressed your question a million times and you still are not getting it. I reject your framing of the question and your applying it to my statement, which you have taken out of context. I can explain it to you a million different ways and you still are not listening.
Maybe I will Pray and ask Mary to appear to you and explain it to you for me. Because you do not listen to what I am actually saying ; )
The Bible warns against necromancy. Which I would assume that you agree. What is the definition of necromancy? "Necromancy is the practice of communicating with the dead, traditionally used for divination, foretelling the future, or acquiring hidden knowledge.
When Catholic Christians Pray to the Saints and ask them for their intercession, we should not be doing so for the above reasons.
I would like to not here, for any Protestant and Evangelicals who are reading this, that we believe that anyone who dies here on earth, but is in Christ, that they are not dead nor cut off from the mystical body Christ, but rather more alive than they were here on earth.
1 John 4:1 says, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
In what ways do you test apparition claims?? I’m asking you personally.
For me, one of the ways that I test the claims of those who claim to be modern prophets and prophetesses (in addition to 1 John 4:2 & 1 Corinthians 12:3) is, are they practicing divination or do their claims rhyme with the practice of divination?
Many say that the test is also “by their fruits” you will know (Matthew 7:16 & Galatians 5:22-23), and I agree that this is a test, but the LDS live by this, and yet, you tell me that their revelations are false (which I agree).
Are there any things besides violating public revelation (as you have said) that would cause you to not accept a prophetic claim to be valid or authentic?
Are there any approved apparitions that you do not believe are authentic?
Are there any apparitions that the Church have denied are valid that you believe are authentic?
Thank you : )
I understand that people make different kinds of claims about messages. That’s obviously true. But the distinctions you introduced — “secret messages,” “private messages,” and an “elevated form of private revelation” — are not distinctions the Church teaches.
The Church has only two categories: public revelation and private revelation. Everything you described falls entirely within private revelation.
I’m not misunderstanding you. I’m responding directly to the categories and claims you’ve made. You’ve said that it would be “a step too far” for God to send or authorize Mary to deliver messages, and you’ve repeated that claim several times.
That’s why I’m asking about the theological principle behind it. If you’re making a universal statement about what God does or doesn’t do, there has to be a principle that grounds it.
So the question remains:
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?
If you have one, I’m happy to hear it. If you don’t, that’s fine — just say so.
I’m happy to talk about testing spirits, necromancy, divination, and discernment criteria, but none of that addresses the claim you made. You said it would be “a step too far” for God to send or authorize Mary to deliver messages. That is a universal statement about divine action, and universal statements require a theological principle.
So before we move to other topics, I’m asking again:
What theological principle grounds that belief?
If you have one, I’m happy to hear it. If you don’t, that’s fine — just say so.
Oh my gosh! I am describing characteristics of how some view various claims.
When Pope Francis called traditional Catholicism “rigid” was he using an official category for a different type of Catholic Faith? No.
Neither am I.
I am not saying that the Church categorizes revelation by these descriptions. Do you understand what I am saying?
SECRET Messages or Future Predictions!
Not a step too far for God (if He wanted to), but rather a step too far for my belief that a claim is authentic. You keep saying that I am saying that God could not do such a thing, which I am not making that claim (as I have already explained to you a few times noe).
I’m beginning to think that you are A.i. and that this is some sore of simulator to see how I will react to your relentless twisting of what I am saying.
I have asked you specifically about what you believe about a few different things and you do not care to have a conversation about what you believe. Do you know who else is unable to have a conversation about personal beliefs? A.i.
Read this comment and tell me it does not sound like something an A.i. bot would not say:
This conversation feels so much like this.
I never I said or implied that I “do not care to have a conversation about what I believe.” In fact, I’ve explicitly said:
I’m sincerely willing to discuss my beliefs, but not in a way that helps you avoid answering the question already on the table.
I never argued that your position is God could not do X. In fact, I explicitly said:
Cade, yes — of course God could choose Mary for any mediation He wills. That’s never been in dispute. My question has never been about whether God could do so, but about the principle behind your claim that God would not or does not do so.
Regarding “secret messages", you said:
Secret messages, which I consider different than (capital “P”) Private Messages. There is a difference.
You don’t have to call it (small “P”) public revelation, but it is being presented as an elevated form of private revelation that, as a follower of Christ, I do not feel comfortable with.
You continue treating “secrets” as a distinct category separate from private revelation. But the Catholic Church does not recognize the distinctions you’re making. Messages from Mary — including content meant to be withheld for a time — are all classified as private revelation in Catholic theology.
A “secret” describes timing of disclosure, not a different kind of communication.
If Mary communicates content to a visionary — whether immediately public or temporarily withheld — it is still a message and still a private revelation.
Catholic theology does not divide Mary’s communications into “secret messages” versus “private messages.” That distinction doesn’t exist in the Church’s categories.
And the idea of an “elevated form of private revelation” doesn’t exist either. The Church has only two categories:
– public revelation, which ended with the Apostles.
– private revelation, which is one single category. Warnings, conditional prophecies, secrets, instructions, and so on, are not separate kinds of revelation — they are the message itself. They are simply different forms of content within a single act of private revelation.
You’ve also said before that “a step too far for me” refers to your personal belief about the authenticity of modern apparition claims. But you haven’t addressed the point I made in response: a personal belief about what God would not do is still a statement about God’s action, not merely about your comfort level.
So when you say, “I do not believe that God sends Mary to deliver x,” that is a claim about what God does or does not do. And when you say, “Listen to God through Mary? Yeah, that is a step too far for me,” you are expressing the same conclusion — that God does not send or authorize Mary to deliver messages. That is why I’m asking for the theological principle behind that belief.
So the question remains:
Since the Church doesn’t support the distinctions you’ve been making, what remains is the principle itself. What theological principle grounds your claim that God would not authorize Mary for this mediation?
If you have one, share it. If you don’t, that’s fine — just say so.
So, if you won’t answer my question about what you believe without conditions, then this really is not a conversation. It is you dictating what it is I believe, while not sharing what it is you believe. And that is not a healthy relationship. That is one of control.
Are you Married by any chance? Are you like this with your Husband?
I’ve already shown that I’m willing to discuss my beliefs — I’ve simply asked that we address the unresolved point first so the conversation has a clear foundation. That isn’t “control”; it’s just basic clarity.
And you’ve said you “already gave your theological reasons,” but what you’ve offered so far are:
– personal comfort levels,
– authenticity thresholds,
– general precautions,
– descriptions of how some people view claims,
– invented distinctions the Church doesn’t teach,
– analogies,
– and personal comments.
None of those are theological principles. A theological principle is a universal rule about what God does or does not do, grounded in Scripture, Tradition, or defined doctrine. You haven’t named one.
The question I’ve asked remains unanswered:
What theological principle grounds your belief that God would not authorize Mary for this mediation?
If you have one, share it. If you don’t, just say so. Personal comments don’t move the conversation forward.
We have already shown that there is a lack of clarity between you and me. We apparently do not speak the same language (as I believe I stated early on).
There is no other way that I can answer your question how you would like me to answer it. This is where we are at. You can repeat the same question over and over and over and over until you are blue in the face and it will not change where we find ourselves in this conversation.
“A.i., Can you simply list where you and I agree on things?”
The issue isn’t a lack of clarity or a language barrier. It’s simply that the things you’ve listed — personal comfort levels, authenticity thresholds, general cautions, biblical truths about discernment, descriptions of how some people view claims, invented categories the Church doesn’t teach, analogies, and personal comments — are not theological principles in the sense required to support the claim “God would not authorize Mary to deliver a message.”
A theological principle is a universal rule about what God does or does not do, grounded in Scripture, Tradition, or defined doctrine. You haven’t named one, and that’s why I’ve continued asking.
Saying “there is no other way I can answer your question” simply means you don’t have a principle to offer — and that’s fine. You can just say so. But it isn’t a communication problem, and it isn’t a matter of me “wanting” a particular answer. It’s a matter of the category of answer the question actually requires.
So I’ll state it plainly again:
If you have a theological principle that grounds your belief that God would not authorize Mary for this mediation, share it. If you don’t, just say so.
And you believe God gave parchment with secret messages to Mary to give to one of the kids at Medjugorje?
In the Book of Numbers, the pagan prophet Balaam beats his donkey for repeatedly refusing to move past an invisible Angel blocking his path. The donkey tried to avoid the Angel and pressed close to a wall, crushing Balaam’s foot against it. God later miraculously opens the donkey’s mouth to speak and ask why she (the donkey) is being beaten by Balaam. Then Balaam’s eyes are opened and he could see the Angel that the donkey could see and he sees that the Angel’s sword was drawn. So, the talking donkey saved his life from being killed by an Angel of the Lord, because the man was going to sell Israel out to King Balak.
So, magic parchment is not as far-fetched as a talking donkey I guess. But, still, I do not think that God is like a school girl passing secret notes to her friend on the other side of the class room, though I bet the school girl would love to have a not that only revealed the message to the intended individual and if anyone else were to intercept it, they would either see a different message or a blank piece of paper. This might be a good plot idea for a movie or novel.
None of this addresses the point I made. You quoted only the first half of the definition — the part about “a universal rule about what God does or does not do” — but you left out the second half: “…grounded in Scripture, Tradition, or defined doctrine.” That grounding requirement is essential, because without it, anything can be called a “principle,” including personal comfort levels, invented categories, analogies, or mockery.
Instead of naming a theological principle, you shifted to a hypothetical about “magic parchment,” a talking donkey, and school‑girl notes.
The question isn’t whether you personally find Medjugorje plausible. The question is:
What theological principle makes you conclude that God would not authorize Mary to deliver a message?
A talking donkey in Numbers is not a principle. Your discomfort with Medjugorje is not a principle. Mocking imagery is not a principle.
A theological principle is a universal rule about what God does or does not do, grounded in Scripture, Tradition, or defined doctrine. You still haven’t named one.
So I’ll ask again, plainly:
If you have a theological principle that grounds your belief, share it. If you don’t, just say so.
Have a Blessed Day : )
1 Like
Understood. Since you’re choosing to end the conversation here, I’ll simply note the conclusion: after almost a month of discussion, you haven’t provided the theological grounding principle your assertion requires — one rooted in Scripture, Tradition, or defined doctrine — that would support the claim that God would not send or authorize Mary to deliver messages. That’s all I was asking for.
I appreciate the exchange, and I wish you well.