Marian apparitions...are they for real or a hoax?

[Defensor Christi]

II don't think it likely that God would sanction such visions because they lend credibility to an organization which has masked the gospel and persecuted God's people for almost the entire length of time the gospel has been preached.

That is my opinion.

That fact that you state that is your opinion is the only factual thing in your stament...LOL...simply because your opinion lacks any credibility or historical backing, thanks for it though...

 

[Marvin Knox]

That fact that you state that is your opinion is the only factual thing in your stament...LOL...simply because your opinion lacks any credibility or historical backing, thanks for it though...

The official stance of your organization is to pronounce a curse on anyone who professes simple faith in the sufficiency of Christ’s accomplishments at Calvary and who will not subscribe to and participate in the dogma of Rome. That is a fact.


Thousands of believers have died screaming on a burning stake while their family watched and cried and your priests held up wooden crosses and chanted Latin phrases. Their only crime was to translate the Bible into their own language or profess a simple faith in the accomplishments of Christ on their behalf. That is a fact.


Upon considering of these sad facts, your only response is “LOL”. That is a fact.
[FONT=&quot]
May God have mercy on your soul.[/FONT]

 

[justinangel]

I said that the 3 possibilities that I named were the only "LIKELY" ones in light of the distorted gospel preached by the people associated with the visions of Mary - namely the Roman Catholic Church.

Maybe your understanding of the gospel is distorted. Would you care to elaborate how Mary's messages distort the gospel instead of just saying it does. I'd be more than happy to demonstrate how Mary's messages are scriptural. If any institution has the authority to reject a claimed private revelation as false because it contradicts Scripture and Tradition, it's the Catholic Church; since she has been in possession of the true gospel for about 2,000 years. It's because of the Catholic Church that you even have a Bible.

I don't think it likely that God would sanction such visions because they lend credibility to an organization which has masked the gospel and persecuted God's people for almost the entire length of time the gospel has been preached. That is my opinion.

An uninformed opinion.

PAX

 

[Albion]

I'd be more than happy to demonstrate how Mary's messages are scriptural.

OK. Start with that feature of many alleged Marian apparitions, Mary telling someone to pray the Rosary. Which Bible verse is it that describes the Rosary?

If any institution has the authority to reject a claimed private revelation as false because it contradicts Scripture and Tradition, it's the Catholic Church; since she has been in possession of the true gospel for about 2,000 years.

But now the topic has changed. If you can believe what you said here, you can easily believe any Marian apparition without any question about the evidence. It's like asking a Mormon if the angel Moroni wrote plates of gold and buried them in New York. "Of course he did," is likely to be the reply, "that's what the Book of Mormon says!"

 

[Marvin Knox]

Maybe your understanding of the gospel is distorted. Would you care to elaborate how Mary's messages distort the gospel instead of just saying it does. I'd be more than happy to demonstrate how Mary's messages are scriptural. If any institution has the authority to reject a claimed private revelation as false because it contradicts Scripture and Tradition, it's the Catholic Church; since she has been in possession of the true gospel for about 2,000 years. It's because of the Catholic Church that you even have a Bible.

An uninformed opinion.
PAX

[FONT=&quot]Maybe your understanding of the gospel is distorted. Would you care to elaborate how Mary's messages distort the gospel instead of just saying it does. I'd be more than happy to demonstrate how Mary's messages are scriptural. If any institution has the authority to reject a claimed private revelation as false because it contradicts Scripture and Tradition, it's the Catholic Church; since she has been in possession of the true gospel for about 2,000 years. It's because of the Catholic Church that you even have a Bible[/FONT].

[FONT=&quot]An uninformed opinion. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PAX[/FONT]

First of all my opinion is anything but uninformed.

Secondly concerning how we got the Scriptures - I would be happy to cite chapter and verse from both Vatican I and Vatican II. The Scriptures "[FONT=&quot]have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself[/FONT][FONT=&quot]." The O.T. Scriptures were written, accepted and translated into various languages long before the Vatican Circus was transformed into the headquarters of the church of Rome. The N.T. Scriptures were recognized as such and in wide use long before being finally codified by Church councils.

Thirdly my understanding of the gospel is pure and "undistorted". Belief and trust in that gospel in it's most basic form for ones salvation. as exemplified by the thief on the cross and the Philippian jailor,is a thing to be rejected and cursed according to the Council of Trent - an authority ratified by every Pope since it's pronouncements.

Lastly you are mistaken in that you claim that I have said that the supposed messages from Mary distort the gospel. In so far as the charges I made in my post - I said nothing whatsoever about the content of Mary's messages as such. From my standpoint she may have delivered a recipe from Heaven showing how to bake manna at Fatima. For that matter she may have remained silent altogether. It wouldn't change my statement concerning God's likely sanctioning of the visit one bit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And, as an aside, I did not charge that the visions of Mary were works of the devil. That was a charge forwarded as a possibility in the O.P. I included other possibilities in my post. But my opinion is that that it is at least a possibility that they are demonic and I said as much. It was nothing more than what had been forwarded as a possibility before in the thread without objection from anyone. I took that fact to mean that most agreed that it could be Satanic, at least in some instances.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Again - what their ultimate source is for sure – I do not claim to know.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And, by the way, this discussion is being put forward in the general theology section of the forum. The opinion of Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern and many such are all presumably welcome in this thread.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I listed what I consider the "likley" sources of the appearances. It should come as no real surprise that an informed Protestant would reject the idea that these things are likely from God.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I reject the Shroud of Turin and other relics for similar reasons. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]And by the way again – if one wants to see the final result of the clouded gospel created by the belief in Romanism – look no farther than Mother Theresa. A sadder, more pitiful person than Theresa at her death can hardly be imagined. Her memoirs display a woman in anguish of soul when she contemplated what awaited here on the other side of death. If her situation does not display for every Catholic to contemplate what the results are of the teachings of Rome – I do not know what would. If she had spent a little more time in the Scriptures and less time venerating Mary, talking up the appearances of Mary, and saying the Rosary - she may have found in the pages of Scripture the simple gospel and peace for her troubled soul. God bless this victim of the Roman system.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have been simply responding to various charges against my posts. I would gladly take my leave if people would simply let them alone.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If everyone chooses to do so - perhaps you could all address this simple question. Since all here seem to agree that it is at least possible that many of the "visits" were Satanic in nature - what would it be that Satan was looking to accomplish with the visits and how does that differ from what God is supposedly accomplishing?
[/FONT]

 

[concretecamper]

First of all my opinion is anything but uninformed.

Secondly concerning how we got the Scriptures - I would be happy to cite chapter and verse from both Vatican I and Vatican II. The Scriptures "[FONT=&quot]have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself[/FONT][FONT=&quot]." The O.T. Scriptures were written, accepted and translated into various languages long before the Vatican Circus was transformed into the headquarters of the church of Rome. The N.T. Scriptures were recognized as such and in wide use long before being finally codified by Church councils.

Thirdly my understanding of the gospel is pure and "undistorted". Belief and trust in that gospel in it's most basic form for ones salvation. as exemplified by the thief on the cross and the Philippian jailor,is a thing to be rejected and cursed according to the Council of Trent - an authority ratified by every Pope since it's pronouncements.

Lastly you are mistaken in that you claim that I have said that the supposed messages from Mary distort the gospel. In so far as the charges I made in my post - I said nothing whatsoever about the content of Mary's messages as such. From my standpoint she may have delivered a recipe from Heaven showing how to bake manna at Fatima. For that matter she may have remained silent altogether. It wouldn't change my statement concerning God's likely sanctioning of the visit one bit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And, as an aside, I did not charge that the visions of Mary were works of the devil. That was a charge forwarded as a possibility in the O.P. I included other possibilities in my post. But my opinion is that that it is at least a possibility that they are demonic and I said as much. It was nothing more than what had been forwarded as a possibility before in the thread without objection from anyone. I took that fact to mean that most agreed that it could be Satanic, at least in some instances.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Again - what their ultimate source is for sure – I do not claim to know.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And, by the way, this discussion is being put forward in the general theology section of the forum. The opinion of Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern and many such are all presumably welcome in this thread.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I listed what I consider the "likley" sources of the appearances. It should come as no real surprise that an informed Protestant would reject the idea that these things are likely from God.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I reject the Shroud of Turin and other relics for similar reasons. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]And by the way again – if one wants to see the final result of the clouded gospel created by the belief in Romanism – look no farther than Mother Theresa. A sadder, more pitiful person than Theresa at her death can hardly be imagined. Her memoirs display a woman in anguish of soul when she contemplated what awaited here on the other side of death. If her situation does not display for every Catholic to contemplate what the results are of the teachings of Rome – I do not know what would. If she had spent a little more time in the Scriptures and less time venerating Mary, talking up the appearances of Mary, and saying the Rosary - she may have found in the pages of Scripture the simple gospel and peace for her troubled soul. God bless this victim of the Roman system.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I have been simply responding to various charges against my posts. I would gladly take my leave if people would simply let them alone.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If everyone chooses to do so - perhaps you could all address this simple question. Since all here seem to agree that it is at least possible that many of the "visits" were Satanic in nature - what would it be that Satan was looking to accomplish with the visits and how does that differ from what God is supposedly accomplishing?
[/FONT]

Perhaps misinformed would have been more accurate?

I couldn't help myself.....all in good fun.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Perhaps misinformed would have been more accurate?

I couldn't help myself.....all in good fun.

It's all good.

But, if I am misinformed in some way, I have been misinformed in large part from the documents and statements of Roman Catholics.

 

[concretecamper]

It's all good.

But, if I am misinformed in some way, I have been misinformed in large part from the documents and statements of Roman Catholics.

I am curious of what and from which documents?

 

[Marvin Knox]

I am curious of what and from which documents?

That would depend upon what statement I have made anyone feels I have misrepresented because I am uniformed or misinformed.

Thus far in just a few posts I have referred to the writings and interviews of Mother Theresa and the affirmations by various popes concerning their subscription to the cursed nature of the simple gospel I believe.

I have Catholic friends with whom I have had deep conversations concerning their beliefs. I have also discussed with professional Catholics their beliefs. I have listened to and read debates concerning various doctrines. I have collected pamphlets and tracts from Catholic locations from Capistrano to Istanbul. I have listened to the beliefs of Catholics here in the forum for some time now. I have consumed religious material from many sources over the 56 years I have been a Christian. Christianity is my main interest in life.

I have referenced in just a few short posts here - The Council of Trent and statements from both Vatican I and Vatican II.

If I am misinformed, it is largely from Catholic sources that I am misinformed.

I have always taken the stance and always will that I will readily correct any belief I have that is found to be inaccurate. That includes my own personal doctrine as well as what I believe about the doctrine of others.

Among other Scriptures I believe that Romans 10:8-11 sums up what I believe is necessary for salvation.

"But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.”


The Catholic Council of Trent and the leadership of the Roman church have pronounced an eternal curse on myself and anyone who believes that that is all that is absolutely necessary for salvation.

The various doctrines related to Mary are forever associated with the Roman Catholic church. I do not believe that God would sanction appearances and statements by Mary which would lend authority to the people who so deny that simple gospel and have so persecuted the people who believe with all their heart that God will save them if they truly believe and confess the things mentioned in the Romans passage.

The lack of assurance that Mother Theresa and any truly consistent Catholic must feel breaks my heart. I will not believe that God's heart breaks any less than my own. He would not send visions that would add to the likelihood that anyone would believe the distorted message that causes such heartbreak.

 

[justinangel]

First of all my opinion is anything but uninformed.

I suppose not, since you do have an opinion. By uninformed I mean based on false and inaccurate information.

Secondly concerning how we got the Scriptures - I would be happy to cite chapter and verse from both Vatican I and Vatican II. The Scriptures "[FONT=&quot]have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself[/FONT][FONT=&quot]." The O.T. Scriptures were written, accepted and translated into various languages long before the Vatican Circus was transformed into the headquarters of the church of Rome. The N.T. Scriptures were recognized as such and in wide use long before being finally codified by Church councils.

Yes, it is the Church, as the final ruling authority, which has determined under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which books of the Bible are divinely inspired. The scriptures themselves are not self-authenticating. The original canon, which was upheld and preserved by the Council of Trent in the wake of the Protestant rebellion, was established by the Decree of Pope Damasus at the Synod of Rome in 382. This decree was subsequently ratified by the regional councils at Hippo and Carthage in the same century; nor did any ecumenical council of the first millennium decide to remove any of the original 72 books as the so-called Protestant reformers did with no divine authority. So what you have left in your Bible is what the Catholic Church has authenticated as genuinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. You have the Roman "circus" assuring you that the scriptures which you have in your possession do indeed have God as their author. Meanwhile, many books which were eventually dismissed by the Synod fathers at Rome in the late 4th century were in fact used among the churches in different regions for centuries.

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things."
Acts 15, 28

"If any one shall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures, besides those which the Catholic Church has received, are to be esteemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema."
Council of Toledo, Canon 12 (A.D. 400)

Thirdly my understanding of the gospel is pure and "undistorted". Belief and trust in that gospel in it's most basic form for ones salvation.

That God works alone in saving souls without human collaboration is an adulterated understanding of the Gospel.

"Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."
John 14, 12

For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. According to the commission of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 3, 9-11

God does indeed desire that all the faithful participate in Christ's work of salvation in some form or capacity as His "fellow workers". We are, so to speak, synergists. The Greek word for "fellow workers" is sunergoi, which means cooperators with God in our Lord's work of salvation. In the Gospel of John (2:1-11), in the narrative of the wedding feast of Cana, we find Mary participating in her Son's work. Although Jesus must have already known that the wine ran out, he wished to invite his mother to intercede for all the guests before he would act. In other words, he desired that his grace should be channeled through the mediation of his mother. In Scripture, the grapes on the vine may symbolize grace. John metaphorically alludes to the wine as the blood of Christ, without which there can be no marriage feast of the Lamb (cf. Rev 19). Moreover, it was by Mary's mediation that Jesus revealed himself to the world and began his public ministry in the shadow of the cross. That hour had not yet come, but he nevertheless honoured his mother's intercession by performing his first miracle of eschatological significance. There is no record in the Gospels of Jesus having performed a miracle through the request of any of his apostles. He simply acted on his own initiative alone out of mercy and compassion when he cured the sick or healed the lame and fed the hungry crowd after the apostles suggested that the crowd of people be sent home so they can have their supper.

The message of the Gospel is clear. By virtue of her divine maternity, the prerogative to influence the Son ultimately rests on the maternal right of the Mother. Thus Mary told the seers: "Only I can save you," for God has willed that all the treasures of grace be held first and foremost under her stewardship. It is through his mother that Jesus wishes to channel all the graces necessary for our salvation. In his Letter, Peter tells us that the stewardship of God's grace has been assigned to all the faithful according to their spiritual gifts and calling ( cf. 1 Pet 4:1-11). But in the divine order of grace our stewardship is subordinate to and dependant on our Blessed Mother's, for the graces that we receive and must convey to others according to our spiritual gifts are channeled first and only through her maternal mediation by the will of God. Incidentally, we find our first Marian message to humankind in the Gospel of John right after Mary has spoken to her Son on behalf of the guests: "Do whatever he tells you." Mary's mediatory role serves to draw us to her Son: 'To Jesus through Mary.' She has not appeared in the exercise of her heavenly saving office to be praised and extolled, but rather to lead us to her Son in and through whom we may abide in God's love and have eternal life with Him.

But my opinion is that that it is at least a possibility that they are demonic and I said as much. It was nothing more than what had been forwarded as a possibility before in the thread without objection from anyone. I took that fact to mean that most agreed that it could be Satanic, at least in some instances.

There are some claimed private revelations that probably are the work of Satan and the fallen angels, since their content clearly contravene Scripture and the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The claims of Julia Kim in South Korea are an example. The commission that investigated her claims, under the authority of the bishop of her diocese, rejected them as false. Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima, on the other hand, have even been endorsed as true by the Holy See at Rome. By true we mean morally certain. The universal magisterium can make an infallible (exempted from error by the seal of the Holy Spirit) and definitive pronouncement only with regard to public divine revelation, which ended with the death of the last apostle, and the deposit of faith: sacred Scripture and Tradition.

PAX

 

[Marvin Knox]

I suppose not, since you do have an opinion. By uninformed I mean based on false and inaccurate information.



Yes, it is the Church, as the final ruling authority, which has determined under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which books of the Bible are divinely inspired. The scriptures themselves are not self-authenticating. The original canon, which was upheld and preserved by the Council of Trent in the wake of the Protestant rebellion, was established by the Decree of Pope Damasus at the Synod of Rome in 382. This decree was subsequently ratified by the regional councils at Hippo and Carthage in the same century; nor did any ecumenical council of the first millennium decide to remove any of the original 72 books as the so-called Protestant reformers did with no divine authority. So what you have left in your Bible is what the Catholic Church has authenticated as genuinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. You have the Roman "circus" assuring you that the scriptures which you have in your possession do indeed have God as their author. Meanwhile, many books which were eventually dismissed by the Synod fathers at Rome in the late 4th century were in fact used among the churches in different regions for centuries.

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things."
Acts 15, 28

"If any one shall say, or shall believe, that other Scriptures, besides those which the Catholic Church has received, are to be esteemed of authority, or to be venerated, let him be anathema."
Council of Toledo, Canon 12 (A.D. 400)



That God works alone in saving souls without human collaboration is an adulterated understanding of the Gospel.

"Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."
John 14, 12

For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. According to the commission of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 3, 9-11

God does indeed desire that all the faithful participate in Christ's work of salvation in some form or capacity as His "fellow workers". We are, so to speak, synergists. The Greek word for "fellow workers" is sunergoi, which means cooperators with God in our Lord's work of salvation. In the Gospel of John (2:1-11), in the narrative of the wedding feast of Cana, we find Mary participating in her Son's work. Although Jesus must have already known that the wine ran out, he wished to invite his mother to intercede for all the guests before he would act. In other words, he desired that his grace should be channeled through the mediation of his mother. In Scripture, the grapes on the vine may symbolize grace. John metaphorically alludes to the wine as the blood of Christ, without which there can be no marriage feast of the Lamb (cf. Rev 19). Moreover, it was by Mary's mediation that Jesus revealed himself to the world and began his public ministry in the shadow of the cross. That hour had not yet come, but he nevertheless honoured his mother's intercession by performing his first miracle of eschatological significance. There is no record in the Gospels of Jesus having performed a miracle through the request of any of his apostles. He simply acted on his own initiative alone out of mercy and compassion when he cured the sick or healed the lame and fed the hungry crowd after the apostles suggested that the crowd of people be sent home so they can have their supper.

The message of the Gospel is clear. By virtue of her divine maternity, the prerogative to influence the Son ultimately rests on the maternal right of the Mother. Thus Mary told the seers: "Only I can save you," for God has willed that all the treasures of grace be held first and foremost under her stewardship. It is through his mother that Jesus wishes to channel all the graces necessary for our salvation. In his Letter, Peter tells us that the stewardship of God's grace has been assigned to all the faithful according to their spiritual gifts and calling ( cf. 1 Pet 4:1-11). But in the divine order of grace our stewardship is subordinate to and dependant on our Blessed Mother's, for the graces that we receive and must convey to others according to our spiritual gifts are channeled first and only through her maternal mediation by the will of God. Incidentally, we find our first Marian message to humankind in the Gospel of John right after Mary has spoken to her Son on behalf of the guests: "Do whatever he tells you." Mary's mediatory role serves to draw us to her Son: 'To Jesus through Mary.' She has not appeared in the exercise of her heavenly saving office to be praised and extolled, but rather to lead us to her Son in and through whom we may abide in God's love and have eternal life with Him.



There are some claimed private revelations that probably are the work of Satan and the fallen angels, since their content clearly contravene Scripture and the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The claims of Julia Kim in South Korea are an example. The commission that investigated her claims, under the authority of the bishop of her diocese, rejected them as false. Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima, on the other hand, have even been endorsed as true by the Holy See at Rome. By true we mean morally certain. The universal magisterium can make an infallible (exempted from error by the seal of the Holy Spirit) and definitive pronouncement only with regard to public divine revelation, which ended with the death of the last apostle, and the deposit of faith: sacred Scripture and Tradition.

PAX

Very good.

Now I'm even more informed.

I may or may not take the time in this case to investigate enough to decide whether your information is worthy of adding to my data bank. I'd much rather stay uninformed than relay misinformation.

We'll see about that - but thanks for all the work you put into the post.

And your point was?

 

[MrMoe]

ok, sorry that I had to drag this out so long

I was trying to make a point


we have the Dragon, that is the Devil
we have the Child, that is Jesus
we have the angel Michael, that is Michael the Archangel

and we have the Woman....
the other 3 persons used in chapter 12 are individual persons
they are not some cosmic, universal, nebulous corpus

so in the context of talking about Jesus Christ
and the Devil
and Michael

it seems to indicate that keeping with this theme, the Woman who gave birth to the Child is Mary.... because we know that Mary gave birth to Jesus

You're saying because the other figures are actual persons then the woman must be an actual person too. it seems like a simple and logical assumption but doesn't mean it's right. There is no rule that says because all the others are actual persons then they all must be actual people.

I could use your same argument In revelation 19 where there are two women mentioned.

. The Great Harlot
. The Bride

Jesus and the angels are actual people. So are the kings of the earth and the false prophet. I could say that because these other figures are literal then these two women must be literal people too. A very simple assumption but it doesn't hold up when viewed in light of what other scripture says.

The symbolism of the sun, moon and stars also cannot be ignored. Revelation12:1 is most definitely a reference to Genesis 37:9 where Joseph has a dream about the stars which represented his brothers who along with him who would make up the twelve tribes of Israel, and the sun and the moon being Jacob and his mother.

Also it says that: "she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered."
According to Catholics Mary never experienced birth pains, on the other hand Israel is said to have experienced Birth pains and giving birth several times in scripture.

 

[justinangel]

Very good.

Now I'm even more informed.

I may or may not take the time in this case to investigate enough to decide whether your information is worthy of adding to my data bank. I'd much rather stay uninformed than relay misinformation.

We'll see about that - but thanks for all the work you put into the post.

And your point was?

You're welcome.

I wasn't trying to make any single point. But I was trying to point out that perhaps you are mistaken in believing that Marian devotion opposes the Gospel message and that the "Roman Catholic Church" encourages this devotion in order to systematically keep its members in "bondage" with the intention of "masking" the truth. What you may have in mind is the idea of the Roman Catholic Church (founded by Peter and Paul) promoting a works based path to salvation independent of the activity of the Holy Spirit and based purely on human merit apart from grace. In any event, by your reasoning, we may just as well assume that the Catholic Church, by Pope Damsus' decree in the 4th century, established the canon of Scripture in order to enslave its members by teaching them false doctrines and encouraging false practices.

"But it has, on the other hand, been shown, that the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples…For in the Church," it is said, "God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers,' and all the other means through which the Spirit works; of which all those are not partakers who do not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behaviour. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:24 (A.D. 180)

PAX

 

[justinangel]

OK. Start with that feature of many alleged Marian apparitions, Mary telling someone to pray the Rosary. Which Bible verse is it that describes the Rosary?

The Joyful Mysteries:

The Annunciation {Lk 1:26-38}
The Visitation {Lk 1:39-45}
The Nativity {Lk 2:1-6}
The Presentation of the Infant Jesus in the Temple {Lk 2:22-38}
The Finding of the Child Jesus Preaching in the Temple {Lk 2:41:52}

The Luminous Mysteries:

The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan {cf. Mt 3:13-17 and parallels}
The Self-Revelation of the Lord at the Wedding Feast of Cana {cf. Jn 2:1-12}
The Lord Jesus Proclaims the Coming of the Kingdom {cf. Mk 1:15}
The Transfiguration of the Lord {cf. Lk 9:28-36 and parallels}
The Institution of the Holy Eucharist {cf. Mt 26:26-30 and parallels}

The Sorrowful Mysteries:

The Agony in the Garden {cf. Mt 26:36-46 and parallels}
The Scourging at the Pillar {cf. Lk 23:13-25 and parallels}
The Crowning with Thorns {cf. Jn 19:2-4 and parallels}
The Carrying of the Cross {cf. Jn 19:17 and parallels}
The Crucifixion {cf. Jn 19:17-37 and parallels}

The Glorious Mysteries:

The Resurrection of Christ {cf. Mt 28:1-10 and parallels}
The Ascension of Christ {cf. Mk 16:19-20; Lk 24:50-53; Acts 1:6-11}
The Descent of the Holy Spirit {cf. Acts 2:1-13}
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary {cf. Gen 3:15; Ps 132:8; Songs 2:10-11; 4:7-8; Lk 1:28, 35}
The Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary {cf. Songs 6:9-10; Ps 45:9; 1 Kgs 2:19; Mk 10:40; Lk 1:31-33; 1 Pet 5:4; Rev 12:1}

The Apostles Creed is scriptural, as is the Doxology (Glory Be to the Trinity)

"Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And do not bring us to the time of trial,
but rescue us from the evil one."
Matthew 6, 9-13

'Hail, Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you. (cf. Lk 1:28)
Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. (cf.Lk 1:42)
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.' (cf. Lk 1:43-44; Acts 2:14; 1 Tim 2:1-4; Rev 5:8)

But now the topic has changed. If you can believe what you said here, you can easily believe any Marian apparition without any question about the evidence. It's like asking a Mormon if the angel Moroni wrote plates of gold and buried them in New York. "Of course he did," is likely to be the reply, "that's what the Book of Mormon says!"

When Paul wrote in his First Letter to Timothy that the Church is "the bulwark and foundation of the truth", he didn't have that church which was founded by Joseph Smith Jr. in 1840 in mind, but rather the Church which was founded by Jesus Christ on the foundation of the apostles. Anyway, the Catholic Church does in fact reject many claims of private revelations. I can assure you that PRs are investigated by a commission under the appointed bishop. We can only know with moral certainty whether a PR is true or false, since it does not belong to the deposit of faith.

PAX

 

[MrMoe]

That is what EVERYBODY says!! That is why there are thousands of Protestant denominations all disagreeing on various theological interpretations...thank you for proving my point.

Mormons claim original authority and that they are the one true church. They can say the same about every other church. Your statement doesn't prove anything other than you believe the Catholic church is the one true church.
And no that's not what EVERYBODY says. Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses and Catholics claim scripture cannot be correctly understood without the church's divinely appointed leadership from which God reveals divine truth through the holy spirit.

I wouldnt ASSUME you showed me anything...in fact, while I dont specifically recall your statement...I am sure as sure can be that you didnt "show" me...LOL, you are probably personally interpreting my statements to fit your belief...

Here's the link, see for yourself.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7837166-12/#post66191780

Ask a Priest...

I'm not a Catholic and there are no Catholic churches where I live but from what I've read from Catholic websites about Mortal sins that it would be a yes.

You found "SOMEONE"...super...great...grand...the point is that has NOTHING to do with the Universal Church...oh, and again, I never saw the comments in full context.

Well here's the full text if you ever fell like reading through it.
Full text of "The glories of Mary"

It isnt tactic...it is important to show that you cannot cherry pick passages to fit your beliefs, which is what you were doing sir.

Okay here's the context.

. The author was the apostle Paul
. It was written around 55-56 A.D.
. Paul wrote to the church he had founded in Corinth and to the house churches in Achaia.
. Paul was in Macedonia when he wrote 2 Corinthians,
.Paul used this letter to explain his delay in returning to them as he had promised in 1Co 16:5-9.
. He didn't want to come to them until all differences were reconciled (2Co 1:23-2:3) and that wasn't complete yet.

Now tell me, does that change anything regarding satan's ability to transform himself into an angel of light and his minister into ministers of righteousness?

I am sorry...what was the question again?

In Acts 16:17 a spirit of divination cries out: "These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation." Paul was preaching that Jesus was the way of salvation.

What do you think the spirit's intention was for saying this?

What was my claim again?

That Mary said she had compassion for all people.

Also I noticed you didn't answer my question. How do you know Mary had compassion for all people?

How do you know she didnt?

You're the one making the positive claim so you're the one who has to proof it.

She said it, ask her when you get there...

Okay, show me where and when she said it. Give me documentation.

Neither Rham nor I are offical voices of the Church, although neither of us disagreed here, you should alwasy seek official teachings to learn about the Church...clears up tons of misconception *see Jack Chick*

I searched through church teachings for the answer and can't find it. It seems they have no official teaching on this.

The Immaculate Heart of Mary IS Jesus...that is the point...how many times do I need to say/link it?

You've only giving me a description of what it is you haven't told me how it is Jesus. Explain to me how it is Jesus.

 

[Rhamiel]

You're saying because the other figures are actual persons then the woman must be an actual person too. it seems like a simple and logical assumption but doesn't mean it's right. There is no rule that says because all the others are actual persons then they all must be actual people.

I could use your same argument In revelation 19 where there are two women mentioned.

. The Great Harlot
. The Bride

Jesus and the angels are actual people. So are the kings of the earth and the false prophet. I could say that because these other figures are literal then these two women must be literal people too. A very simple assumption but it doesn't hold up when viewed in light of what other scripture says.

The symbolism of the sun, moon and stars also cannot be ignored. Revelation12:1 is most definitely a reference to Genesis 37:9 where Joseph has a dream about the stars which represented his brothers who along with him who would make up the twelve tribes of Israel, and the sun and the moon being Jacob and his mother.

Also it says that: "she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered."
According to Catholics Mary never experienced birth pains, on the other hand Israel is said to have experienced Birth pains and giving birth several times in scripture.

I do not believe the Church is dogmatic on the issue of birth pains for the Blessed Mother

you are correct about the other verse, Revelation is filled with symbolism and can be hard to understand at times
the imagery of the Sun, Moon and Stars does reflect Israel in Genesis
it also draws back to imagery from Song of Songs 6:10, also showing a connection to Israel.

I am not saying that the interpretation as the Woman being Israel is totally wrong, I just think it is deeper then that
we also have the fact that this is the "woman who gave birth to the child"
a nation did not give birth to Jesus
a woman gave birth to Jesus

also, since we are going back to Genesis
might as well look at the Protoevangelion

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

then we have Jesus often refer to His Mother as "Woman"

and then we have Revelation 12 talking about "The Woman"

 

[justinangel]

I do not believe the Church is dogmatic on the issue of birth pains for the Blessed Mother

you are correct about the other verse, Revelation is filled with symbolism and can be hard to understand at times
the imagery of the Sun, Moon and Stars does reflect Israel in Genesis
it also draws back to imagery from Song of Songs 6:10, also showing a connection to Israel.

I am not saying that the interpretation as the Woman being Israel is totally wrong, I just think it is deeper then that
we also have the fact that this is the "woman who gave birth to the child"
a nation did not give birth to Jesus
a woman gave birth to Jesus

also, since we are going back to Genesis
might as well look at the Protoevangelion

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

then we have Jesus often refer to His Mother as "Woman"

and then we have Revelation 12 talking about "The Woman"

Yes, the symbolism in Revelation is polyvalent. The Woman does represent Israel, the Church, and Mary from different perspectives. We can never know for certain whether John actually envisioned Mary herself, but if he did it would be because she is the personification of the corporate entity Israel in the figure of Daughter Zion (God's chaste bride) and the prototype of the Church. Mary is also the new Ark of the Covenant according to sacred Tradition. Luke draws several parallels between Mary and the ark in his Gospel with reference to the Second Book of Samuel in acknowledgement of this nascent tradition of the Church. John beheld the woman right after he had a vision of the Ark of the Covenant in Heaven. Originally, there were no chapter breaks in the Apocalypse, so 12:1 does flow from 11:19.

'Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm. A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.'


Sixty queens there may be,
and eighty concubines,
and virgins beyond number;
but my dove, my perfect one, is unique,
the only daughter of her mother,
the favorite of the one who bore her.
The young women saw her and called her blessed;
the queens and concubines praised her.
Who is this that appears like the dawn,
fair as the moon, bright as the sun,
majestic as the stars in procession?
Song of Songs 6, 8-10

PAX

 

[concretecamper]

That would depend upon what statement I have made anyone feels I have misrepresented because I am uniformed or misinformed.

Thus far in just a few posts I have referred to the writings and interviews of Mother Theresa and the affirmations by various popes concerning their subscription to the cursed nature of the simple gospel I believe.

I have Catholic friends with whom I have had deep conversations concerning their beliefs. I have also discussed with professional Catholics their beliefs. I have listened to and read debates concerning various doctrines. I have collected pamphlets and tracts from Catholic locations from Capistrano to Istanbul. I have listened to the beliefs of Catholics here in the forum for some time now. I have consumed religious material from many sources over the 56 years I have been a Christian. Christianity is my main interest in life.

I have referenced in just a few short posts here - The Council of Trent and statements from both Vatican I and Vatican II.

If I am misinformed, it is largely from Catholic sources that I am misinformed.

I have always taken the stance and always will that I will readily correct any belief I have that is found to be inaccurate. That includes my own personal doctrine as well as what I believe about the doctrine of others.

Among other Scriptures I believe that Romans 10:8-11 sums up what I believe is necessary for salvation.

"But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.”


The Catholic Council of Trent and the leadership of the Roman church have pronounced an eternal curse on myself and anyone who believes that that is all that is absolutely necessary for salvation.

The various doctrines related to Mary are forever associated with the Roman Catholic church. I do not believe that God would sanction appearances and statements by Mary which would lend authority to the people who so deny that simple gospel and have so persecuted the people who believe with all their heart that God will save them if they truly believe and confess the things mentioned in the Romans passage.

The lack of assurance that Mother Theresa and any truly consistent Catholic must feel breaks my heart. I will not believe that God's heart breaks any less than my own. He would not send visions that would add to the likelihood that anyone would believe the distorted message that causes such heartbreak.

See bolder parts above.....

Ahhh....the true "sprit of Protestantism" is what I believe. Everyone is their own final authority.

Instead of picking and choosing, emulate Mother Theresa fully by believing everything she did... not just what is comfortable for you.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I wasn't trying to make any single point. But I was trying to point out that perhaps you are mistaken in believing that Marian devotion opposes the Gospel message

[FONT=&quot]I don’t believe that Marian devotion opposes the Gospel message any more than prayer and devotion to the saints do. I never said that it did. I said that that devotion is associated with the Roman Catholic church and that God would not likely sanction “apparitions” which lend credence to an organization which masked and distorted the gospel message.[/FONT]

and that the "Roman Catholic Church" encourages this devotion in order to systematically keep its members in "bondage" with the intention of "masking" the truth.

[FONT=&quot]I did not say that or believe that. I believe that the Roman church encourages that devotion because they believe it to be God’s will that they do so. The fact that they mask the truth and people cannot come to the light is what keeps people in bondage.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe that these errors are in most cases sincerely believed by the leadership. They are in bondage to a system of mistaken theology no less than their parishioners. [/FONT]

What you may have in mind is the idea of the Roman Catholic Church (founded by Peter and Paul)

[FONT=&quot]Peter’s role in the founding of the Roman church and his continuing headship of the church through the Pope is a debate for another thread.[/FONT]

promoting a works based path to salvation independent of the activity of the Holy Spirit and based purely on human merit apart from grace.

[FONT=&quot]I never commented on the Roman view of works, the Holy Spirit, or human merit apart from grace. You must be mistaking me for another poster here.[/FONT]

In any event, by your reasoning, we may just as well assume that the Catholic Church, by Pope Damsus' decree in the 4th century, established the canon of Scripture in order to enslave its members by teaching them false doctrines and encouraging false practices.

[FONT=&quot]I wouldn’t presume to know the reasoning of any person in the 4th century Roman Catholic church. Nor do I believe that any leader of the Roman church necessarily purposefully enslaves its members or knowingly teaches false doctrines and encourages false practices. Some within it may do those things for an evil purpose. But that may be true in many Protestant groups and cults as well. [/FONT]

 

[Marvin Knox]

See bolder parts above.....

Ahhh....the true "sprit of Protestantism" is what I believe. Everyone is their own final authority.

Instead of picking and choosing, emulate Mother Theresa fully by believing everything she did... not just what is comfortable for you.

We all believe something. The source of my belief (I "believe") is my teacher the Holy Spirit. That is the way Christ said it should be.

If I emulate Mother Theresa fully - does that mean I have to withhold pain medicine from those suffering so that they can "enter into the sufferings of Christ?"

Do I have to preach an ecumenical "gospel" to those of other religions while they lay dieing?

Does that mean I have to live a life and die a death wracked with fear of the thousands of years of firey pain that awaits me?

I'll pass - thank you very much!

"I know whom I have believed and I am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have entrusted to Him against that day."