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

[concretecamper]

That is precisely what the new birth is all about and, with it, the imputed righteousness of Christ. You cannot separate the two.

If you agree that justification is an ongoing process and not a one time event....we can agree.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If you agree that justification is an ongoing process and not a one time event....we can agree.

Justification is a one-time event even as the new birth is a one-time event. Likewise, baptism is a one-time event in a person's life. Sanctification, however, continues throughout life. I think that the Catholic church has conflated sanctification with justification.

 

[concretecamper]

Justification is a one-time event even as the new birth is a one-time event. Likewise, baptism is a one-time event in a person's life. Sanctification, however, continues throughout life. I think that the Catholic church has conflated sanctification with justification.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Actually, truth be told, I have the imputed righteousness of God in me through His grace. I am, therefore, just as righteous as Jesus Christ, as is every other believer in Jesus Christ, Mary included.

Do you think that come the last judgement you will stand before God just as you are right now (or as you will be at the moment of your death, the two are essentially the same, right?) and God will declare you perfect and righteous and you will remain exactly as you are at that time? No change, no actual perfection, only the imputed righteousness of Christ? Is that how it worked for all the saints all through history, they stand before God unchanged internally, having been clothed with a garment of righteousness but not having been changed inside to actually be righteous?

Yes to all of your questions.

The "yes" in your reply implies that one ought to fully expect to remain a sinner in heaven and that cannot be true so I ask again if you truly believe that souls still inclined to sin and still sinning will stand before God and be declared righteous on the day of judgement and in that state of sin with the intention to continue therein be admitted to heaven as saints?

 

[MrMoe]

I'm not the topic. Nor are you. The content of the post, not you, was what I disagree with, so is it possible to differentiate between persons and posts?

When individuals begin to address persons, it means their arguments are poor or they need to stop posting.

To avoid situations like this again the instigator should remember the statement of purpose rules.

And speaking of "reading minds", pot kettle black.

Thank you for admitting you had a beam in your own eye.

So sure? I'd argue false premise.

On what are you basing it?

Pot kettle black.

Thank you for admitting you had a beam in your own eye.

It isn't mine that is the subject but the poster's-in-question.

If a person decides to get involved in a debate they are now a part of the debate and can be questioned. There is no rule in debating that says I cannot ask for clarification from an opponent. Especially if that opponent might use the vagueness of his statement against their opponent.

Jesus is forever a child under a different use of the term, which is the same no matter how He may or may not choose to manifest.

I would agree with that

Furthermore, suggesting as if the vision saw signifies that He is everyone's son and not a savior is, honestly, irrelevant.

Who suggested the vision signifies the he is everyone's son? Wasn't me. That is why I asked you to clarify your claim.

And since I never said that being a son and a savior are mutually exclusive you're arguing a strawman.

Other way around.

No, other way around.

Proof of having a position so weak and pathetic it must require addressing the opponent to look valid. Disgraceful.

Don't claim logic when logic isn't used in your own posts.

Pot kettle black

A person who uses a certain type of argument against their opponent and then criticizes their opponent for using the same type of argument against them is also proof of having a weak position and is also hypocritical.
This is far more disgraceful than having an alleged weak and pathetic position.

chapter 12 also talks about the Child

what does the Child represent?

The child represents the messiah Jesus.

 

[Rhamiel]

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

 

[Defensor Christi]

My interpretation comes from using logic, reasoning, prayer to God to give me wisdom through the holy spirit to reveal the truth of the scriptures and not trying to read my own ideas into the scriptures.

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.

When I showed you that the woman in Revelation 12 was Israel using scripture, I also showed you your belief that it was Mary and the church was logically flawed, all you could say was that you interpreted it differently. You never gave a reason.

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...

Is it a mortal sin to believe what he believed?

Ask a Priest...

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said this person believed what the entire church believes. I said I found someone who believed Mary was necessary for salvation to disprove your claim no one has said that.

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.

You asked for links for context and I gave them to you. As a Catholic I would have assumed you would know and have read of the events and messages of Fatima so your constant requests for context are starting to seem insincere.
I have read what this apparition has said and what occurred and the quote isn't any less blasphemous in context.

Again...dont ASSUME, you do know what happens when you do that right?

We need the heart of Christ not of Mary. Did you realize this Fatima apparition called Jesus "the child Jesus"? Only one problem.. Jesus isn't a child anymore!

See PalinVader for answers here...no need to repeat his answer.

You asked for context and I gave it to you, now your asking for the entire passage/chapter/book in light of history, context and people. Are you going to ask me for it in the context of the history of the universe next?

I agree that context is very important but 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 is simply stating an ability and tactic of Satan.

I hope you're not seriously suggesting we need to put that verse in the context of history and culture to figure out if the devil is still the devil.

If you know the context of the verse in history and culture then please tell us so we can move the discussion forward instead of using it a diverging tactic.

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.

The fact that you did not answer my question about the words spoken by the divination spirit in Acts 16:17 says a lot.

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

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

I will. I will also ask her if she heard the millions of prayers directed to her.

Yes we are, but that doesn't prove your claim.

True, but again that still doesn't prove your claim.

What was my claim again?

The problem is I'll get two or more different answers. I've seen this several times here and other places online. I asked Rhamiel the same question and he said he doesn't pray to no canonized saints because they haven't been officially recognized by the church therefore it is not certain that if they are in heaven. I pointed out the obvious problem with this but he never replied.

So if Catholics can't agree on what they believe how do they expect non Catholics to be sure what they believe.

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*

The immaculate heart is not Jesus. Jesus is our salvation.

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

 

[bbbbbbb]

The "yes" in your reply implies that one ought to fully expect to remain a sinner in heaven and that cannot be true so I ask again if you truly believe that souls still inclined to sin and still sinning will stand before God and be declared righteous on the day of judgement and in that state of sin with the intention to continue therein be admitted to heaven as saints?

The obvious implication in your question is that one cannot enter heaven unless one is sinless and that one must have utterly ceased from sin to do so. IOW, one must have achieved the impossible. John tells us in I John 1:10 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

The fact is that there are only two types of people in this world - lost sinners and saved sinners. Which are you?

 

[justinangel]

The fact is that there are only two types of people in this world - lost sinners and saved sinners. Which are you?

A lost sinner is an unrepentant sinner; a saved sinner is a repentant sinner.

Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out,
Acts 3, 19

The word "wiped" comes from the Greek word exalipho, which means an actual wiping away and removal of sin. Sanctifying grace entails an objective change of our nature, not just a relational change of status. Our souls are not merely covered by Christ's personal righteousness while remaining corrupt because of our sinful human nature. The infusion of divine grace makes us actually righteous before God. Sanctifying grace is a supernatural and permanent disposition of the soul which perfects it and enables it to live with God. Without the inherent quality of sanctity by the grace of God no soul can enter heaven. Those who wish to continue to sin habitually and refuse to repent and be absolved of their sins shall not enter heaven not withstanding their sinful nature. We mustn't confuse concupiscence with actual sin.

When we acknowledge our sinfulness and repent of our sins, our souls are actually cleansed of all sins through this interior transformation of our disposition effected by grace. It is actual grace that prompts us to sincerely repent and seek personal reconciliation with God and hate sin. 'A new heart I will give you; a new spirit I will put within you' (Ezek. 36:26-27; cf. Phil. 2:13). Our guilt is actually removed because of this interior supernatural change in our souls, and unless God does really remove it because of this ontological change of ours effected by his grace with our genuine co-operation, none of us will ever enter Heaven. Christ's suffering and death on the cross shall not fully benefit us if our interior disposition defiles us. The 'warring members' of our bodies shall not be taken into account on the particular day of judgment of our souls upon death.

And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.
Acts 22, 16

And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6, 11

The phrase "wash away" is from the Greek word apolouo, which again means an actual removal of guilt and infused cleansing of the soul by the grace of God, rendering it sinless. A sinful soul is one deprived of sanctifying grace (a quality of the soul) without which no soul can enter heaven. Sanctification precedes justification.

For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
Romans 5, 19

The Greek word for "made" is katestathesan, which denotes a genuine ontological change of the soul by the grace of God merited for us by Christ. Just as we are genuinely made sinful by nature apart from divine grace, so too we are genuinely made sinless by a supernatural transformation of the soul by the grace of God. God does not merely consider a soul righteous, but actually makes it so, that it can live with Him in Heaven.

Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth, for you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. But now you must get rid of all such things—anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have stripped off the old self with its practices and have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator.
Colossians 3, 2-3; 8-10

PAX

 

[YoureMyBeloved]

There's a book written by two italian journalists, Renzo and Roberto Allegri, I believe the english version is Fatima: the story behind the Miracles. They interviewed sister Lucia's nephew. Their intent was simply a report but they were told a lot of stories so they wrote a book instead. I recommend it!

 

[Albion]

Yes to all of your questions.

If it were "no," God would be judging perfection, which would be pointless. And the theory is that it is He who is supposedly making them perfect after death and before the judgment.

 

[justinangel]

It was satan who first planted the seed of doubt in Eve's thoughts. God's words were and are always true, so any time a doubt about them comes into your mind, you'll know that you're listening to the wrong counsel. God's prophets carry and proclaim His words. They cannot speak against God. Satan's messengers on the other hand will always cast doubt and speak against God.

Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear... But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. Zechariah asked the angel, “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years.” The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their appointed time.”
Luke 1, 11-13, 18-20

Was the angel Gabriel Satan's messenger? Did Zechariah receive the wrong counsel since he doubted what the angel had said to him?

PAX

 

[justinangel]

It was satan who first planted the seed of doubt in Eve's thoughts. God's words were and are always true, so any time a doubt about them comes into your mind, you'll know that you're listening to the wrong counsel. God's prophets carry and proclaim His words. They cannot speak against God. Satan's messengers on the other hand will always cast doubt and speak against God.

Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear... But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. Zechariah asked the angel, “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years.” The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their appointed time.”
Luke 1, 11-13, 18-20

Was the angel Gabriel actually Satan's messenger in disguise? Did Zechariah receive the wrong counsel from a demon since he doubted what the angel had said to him?

PAX

 

[Marvin Knox]

This thought came to my mind....I know about certain Marian apparitions that a lot of Catholics deem to be true but satan himself disguises himself as a angel of light according to the the word of God. Satan and his demons can masquerade as departed loved ones to trick us and wouldn't it be possible Satan and his minions can do the same with these "Marian apparitions"?

IMO there are really three likely possibilities for any person with the mind of Christ to consider.
1. The accounts of appearances are out and out lies to further a religious agenda.
2. They are perhaps well meaning but mistaken human based dreams or projections of belief.
3. They are demonic in nature.

I liken them very much to the encounters of Muhammad with the supposed angel Gabriel. The resulting fruit of those encounters is very plain for all to see.

Looking at the fruit of those encounters with an angelic personage, whatever their source, makes it impossible to believe that they were produced directly of God.

The same is true for the fruit of the visions being considered here.

The idea that God would sanction anything that would add in any way to the effectiveness of a system that has kept millions in bondage and masked and clouded the simple gospel so thoroughly for so long is almost too much for a born again believer to consider IMO.

 

[Rhamiel]

Looking at the fruit of those encounters with an angelic personage, whatever their source, makes it impossible to believe that they were produced directly of God.

conversions away from paganism to Christianity
"conversions of the heart" people going from lukewarm Christians to devoted Christians
healings

the only reason you do not accept these things is that you do not like Catholicism

 

[Albion]

the only reason you do not accept these things is that you do not like Catholicism

Yeh, that's the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with another church's theological positions.

 

[Marvin Knox]

conversions away from paganism to Christianity
"conversions of the heart" people going from lukewarm Christians to devoted Christians
healings

the only reason you do not accept these things is that you do not like Catholicism

Any system can point to some kind of so called fruit I suppose.

You are correct to say that I do not like Catholicism.

I dislike any system that keeps people from trusting the finished work of Christ and only that finished work for their salvation.

I won't comment on the many out and out false religions in the world which do not even mention Christ. Those that do include the name of Christ are the ones I feel most qualified to offer an opinion on.

Systems like that include Catholicism, Islam, Mormonism, J.W.'s, and a number of so called Protestant groups. Any system which keeps people from making the finished work of Christ their only hope for salvation is a system which I believe God would not sanction by way of signs and wonders.

Whatever the source of such supporting signs and wonders may be - I do not believe it to be God.

I don't make the judgment that persons cannot be saved within those groups. But they are save IMO in spite of false teaching concerning the importance of that group in their salvation and not because of it.

I personally know of several Catholic people who seem to have rested in the work of Christ as their only hope for salvation. But they do so in spite of rather than agreeing with the curses pronounced upon that faith by those in authority in the Catholic Church - namely the Pope and the Council of Trent.

There is a reason people like me are often called Protestants. When someone or some group adds an additional layer to our hope of salvation - we protest.

I won't re-llitigate the issues of the Reformation here in the forum.

The O.P. asked if people thought there may be a source other than God behind the visions of Mary. I responded. I'll leave off with this post.

 

[Rhamiel]

Yeh, that's the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with another church's theological positions.

no
that is not the only reason

but his dismissive attitude and his words speak for themselves

 

[justinangel]

IMO there are really three likely possibilities for any person with the mind of Christ to consider.
1. The accounts of appearances are out and out lies to further a religious agenda.
2. They are perhaps well meaning but mistaken human based dreams or projections of belief.
3. They are demonic in nature

4. They are genuine and true private revelations.

Whether you like it or not, there is a 4th possibility, unless you yourself have received a private revelation from God that makes it absolutely - not simply morally - certain there isn't one.

The idea that God would sanction anything that would add in any way to the effectiveness of a system that has kept millions in bondage and masked and clouded the simple gospel so thoroughly for so long is almost too much for a born again believer to consider IMO.

The idea that God would sanction any religious movement to the effectiveness that the simple Gospel would become a distorted and exaggerated one for so long is too much for this Catholic to comprehend.

PAX

 

[Marvin Knox]

Originally Posted by Marvin Knox

IMO there are really three likely possibilities for any person with the mind of Christ to consider.
1. The accounts of appearances are out and out lies to further a religious agenda.
2. They are perhaps well meaning but mistaken human based dreams or projections of belief.
3. They are demonic in nature
​

4. They are genuine and true private revelations.

Whether you like it or not, there is a 4th possibility, unless you yourself have received a private revelation from God that makes it absolutely - not simply morally - certain there isn't one.

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.

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.