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

[justinangel]

You can say that, but you can't back it up. And that wasn't exactly my point anyway.

The Church has about 2,000 years of tradition - the transmission of the unwritten word of God - to back it up. And your point clearly was that Scripture says very little of Mary. I suppose the NT evangelists should have written everything about our Marian beliefs in more definitive and elaborate terms to satisfy your intellect. However, there was much that even they failed to comprehend about the divine mysteries in nascent time. Jesus founded his Church and sent the Paraclete so that the fullness of divine revelation should bud forth in time from the seeds sown by the apostles and watered by those able men, especially the Patristic Fathers and Doctors of the Church, who succeeded them in the divine office.

"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you."
John 16, 12-14

Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
Ephesians 3, 8-10

Straining hard to find something to point to, aren't you? Sure, Mary is referred to in Scripture and "alluded" to by Jesus here and there, but considering that you folks are insisting that she is the most important mortal who ever lived, the Mother of all humans, co-redeemer of the universe, Queen of Heaven, dispenser of all graces and the one we should look to for salvation, it can't be denied that the New Testament makes scant mention of her doings or of Jesus interacting with her. A serious debater would not be reluctant to address this fact.

Catholics aren't the ones who strain themselves examining the Scriptures in an attempt to rationalize what they merely wish to believe in. We don't regard the Bible as the final teaching authority as Protestants do in principle. Nor is it the starting point in the formulation of Church doctrines as it basically has been in Protestantism. And like I said, you fail to see how much the Scriptures reveal Mary's place in God's plan of salvation because you only accept that which is literally presented save the OT prophecies concerning Christ. Marian typology is abundant in Scripture as are the theological implications concerning her designations and gifts from God. What implicitly lies in sacred Scripture is more explicitly revealed in the sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

'As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same'.
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]

'That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?'
[ibid. 3:4:1]

Mary, Mother of the Church

'O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother. I love to call her the Church. This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother--pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood.'
St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 1.6 [A.D. 202]

Mary, co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix (the New Eve)

'Christ became man by the Virgin that the disobedience which issued from the serpent might be destroyed in the same way it originated. Eve was still an undefiled virgin when she conceived the word of the serpent and brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin received faith and joy, at the announcement of the angel Gabriel...and she replied, "Be it done to me according you your word". So through the mediation of the Virgin he came into the world, through whom God would crush the serpent.'
St. Justin Martyr, Apologia, 100 [A.D. 150]

'The seduction of a fallen angel drew Eve, a virgin espoused to a man, while the glad tidings of the holy angel drew Mary, a Virgin already espoused, to begin the plan which would dissolve the bonds of that first snare...For as the former was lead astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had disobeyed his word, so did the latter, by and angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should bear God, and obeyed his word. If the former disobeyed God, the latter obeyed, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. Thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is saved by a virgin; virginal disobedience is balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:24:4 [A.D.189]

Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant

'At that time, the Savior coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth His own Body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested....And the Savior came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is to say His own body.'
St. Hippolytus, In Dan Vl [A.D. 235]

Mary, Queen of Heaven

'O Immaculate and wholly-pure Virgin Mary, Mother of God, Queen of the world, hope of those who are in despair; thou art the joy of the Saints; thou art the peacemaker between sinners and God; thou art the advocate of the abandoned, the secure haven of those who are on the sea of the world; thou art the consolation of the world, the ransom of slaves, the comfortress of the afflicted, the salvation of the universe. O great Queen, we take refuge in thy protection: 'We have no confidence but in thee, O most faithful Virgin.' After God thou art all our hope. We bear the name of thy servants; allow not the enemy to drag us to Hell. I salute thee, O great Mediatress of peace between men and God, Mother of Jesus our Lord, who is the love of all men and of God, to whom be honor and benediction with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Amen.'
St. Ephrem of Syria, Prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary [d. A.D. 373]

PAX

 

[bbbbbbb]

apparitions are tough to judge
you have to look at the message, you have to look at the person who had the vision
it pays off to be skeptical
that is one reason that apparitions are not part of the doctrine of the faith
no one HAS to believe in them

Thank you for a balanced post. I quite agree with you.

 

[Rhamiel]

if anyone wants to read an account of what happened in Fatima, please read this book
"Our Lady of Fatima by William Thomas Walsh"
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/288500.Our_Lady_of_Fatima

it was written by an ivy league trained historian who spent months in Fatima interviewing people who were connected to the events, even though the book was written decades after the events, many of the people were still alive who were connected to the events.
he also had interviews with Sister Lucia and had access to 3 diaries that the Bishops asked her to write at different times, to see if she changed the story as time went by and to have a full account of what happened for the formal investigation of the visions

 

[Albion]

The Church has about 2,000 years of tradition - the transmission of the unwritten word of God - to back it up.

In case you've forgotten already, the point (which you made) was that the Bible allegedly gives her a lot of attention (which it does not). The visible church nor any particular denomination was not the focus.

And your point clearly was that Scripture says very little of Mary.

The Scripture says little about Mary, that's true. My point was actually that, this being the case, it is hard to see how it makes sense for Christians to make her into something she obviously was not.

It's also been mentioned, but not by me, that history itself tells us almost nothing of her life both before and after the Ascension.

However, there was much that even they failed to comprehend about the divine mysteries in nascent time. Jesus founded his Church and sent the Paraclete so that the fullness of divine revelation should bud forth in time from the seeds sown by the apostles and watered by those able men, especially the Patristic Fathers and Doctors of the Church, who succeeded them in the divine office.

All right. Your argument is that Scripture doesn't make all that much out of Mary, but legend and myth does.

To be fair, IF Scripture and folklore both paid a lot of attention to her life, there might be a shred of an argument here, but of course we know that that's not the case. So all you are left with is the theory that the Holy Spirit inspired all the conflicting and unsubstantiated legends of later history that relate to Mary--which, if true, would make the Holy Spirit the author of confusion after all. Are you sure that's what you where you want to plant your sword and take your stand?

 

[justinangel]

In case you've forgotten already, the point (which you made) was that the Bible allegedly gives her a lot of attention (which it does not). The visible church nor any particular denomination was not the focus.

Scripture does give Mary sufficient attention, only not in the literal sense. You're focussing too much on the material sufficiency of the written word of God while failing to understand how formally insufficient it actually is as the final rule of faith because of its ambiguities. By divorcing the written word from the unwritten word - Tradition - and dismissing the latter you have neither of them, so Irenaeus would tell you as he did the Gnostics of his time. Scripture proceeds from Tradition which is safeguarded by the Holy Spirit in the Church. It's arrogant of you to toss 2,000 years of tradition out the window simply because it doesn't square with how you biasedly interpret the Scriptures to accommodate your religious persuasion.

The Scripture says little about Mary, that's true. My point was actually that, this being the case, it is hard to see how it makes sense for Christians to make her into something she obviously was not.

It makes sense because Jesus promised to send the Paraclete to guide his Church in all truth - not drop a Bible from the sky for you to pick up and decide for yourself what the divine truth is. And there is much, however implicit and veiled, in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation that amply supports Catholic Marian doctrines and dogmas.

It's also been mentioned, but not by me, that history itself tells us almost nothing of her life both before and after the Ascension.

Why must we have a detailed written account of Mary's entire life? All we need to know is how much of an important role she had been blessed with in the economy of salvation. Meanwhile we know practically nothing of Jesus' life before Cana for the same reason, and what we do have recorded in Luke's Infancy Narratives about Jesus always includes and primarily involves his mother - not his foster father, Joseph. And all we know about Jesus after he rose from the dead is that he appeared to people and supped with them. Shouldn't we be told much more of what he did and said if he really were the Son of God?

Also, keep in mind that the NT epistles are occasional pastoral letters addressed to particular communities with specific themes of primary soteriological importance that don't require delving into Mariology. The NT wasn't written to give a detailed record of the religious practices and devotions in the life of the Church. The celebration of the Eucharist and the Lord's Supper is vaguely treated from a historical perspective, but only because of the abuses that were committed by church members at Corinth at the Agape feast.

All right. Your argument is that Scripture doesn't make all that much out of Mary, but legend and myth does.

What I said was that the Scriptures don't literally make much of Mary. But the written word of God relates volumes about her implicitly in the spiritual sense: analogical, anagogical, and moral.

To be fair, IF Scripture and folklore both paid a lot of attention to her life, there might be a shred of an argument here, but of course we know that that's not the case. So all you are left with is the theory that the Holy Spirit inspired all the conflicting and unsubstantiated legends of later history that relate to Mary--which, if true, would make the Holy Spirit the author of confusion after all. Are you sure that's what you where you want to plant your sword and take your stand?

Legends don't belong to the deposit of faith. So why bring the Holy Spirit into it? If some people wish to believe that Mary's tomb is at Ephesus and others at Jerusalem, it really makes no difference. But what all these people must and do believe in common is that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul after she passed away. This dogma of the Church did not spring from any legend, but rather through the light of faith. You probably believe in Christ's resurrection and ascension into heaven only because these events are recorded in the NT (Anagogically we have these events foretold in the OT.) You accept them as historical facts in faith, but this kind of faith isn't virtuous. 'Blessed are those who have not seen but believe.' Knowledge of Mary's assumption is something purely granted to the Church by our heavenly Father. In the light of faith, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, Catholics can find confirmation of Mary's assumption into heaven in the Scriptures without having to rely on any literal written statements to satisfy their belief. Initially, belief in the Assumption, and the Incarnation for that matter, sprung from sacred Tradition, not sacred Scripture. And the latter was intentionally written and compiled as material to confirm all the articles of faith belonging to the former in their early states of maturation.

PAX

 

[Albion]

Scripture does give Mary sufficient attention, only not in the literal sense.

That's about the most you can say, isn't it? But, OTOH, it's significant that she receives scant literal attention, if she is as important as the Marian dogmas make out.

I would also point out that when she IS referred to in the NT, other than for the events surrounding Christ's birth, she is normally treated as merely a "bit player" in what is going on. So it's not just the scarcity of references to her that we need to keep in mind; it's also the case that when she is referred to, it's usually something done in passing. That's significant.

Legends don't belong to the deposit of faith.

That's what I'd say, but some churches (including yours) have made them a major part of their system of determining doctrine. These churches refer to it as "Tradition."

 

[justinangel]

That's about the most you can say, isn't it? But, OTOH, it's significant that she receives scant literal attention, if she is as important as the Marian dogmas make out.

Sufficient, not scant.

I would also point out that when she IS referred to in the NT, other than for the events surrounding Christ's birth, she is normally treated as merely a "bit player" in what is going on. So it's not just the scarcity of references to her that we need to keep in mind; it's also the case that when she is referred to, it's usually something done in passing. That's significant.

I prefer to look at the quality of what is written in the Scriptures rather than at the quantity. Although the name Peter, Simon, and Kephas are mentioned 195 times in the course of the NT ( in second place is John at a mere 29 times), I accept Peter's primacy among the apostles simply by the content presented in eleven key passages.

The Incarnation, the Nativity, the Presentation, The Wedding at Cana, and the Crucifixion are not merely historical events that are past and done with, but rather pivotal events in the history of salvation of eschatological importance. Mary was a key player in all these events. I suppose you also think that the apostles were just bit players used by God.

That's what I'd say, but some churches (including yours) have made them a major part of their system of determining doctrine. These churches refer to it as "Tradition."

Assuming that they are derived from legends, which is all you are doing 2000 years later with no leg to stand on. You might think that P is true, but that doesn't make P true.

PAX

 

[Rhamiel]

Albion

NT, other than for the events surrounding Christ's birth, she is normally treated as merely a "bit player" in what is going on.

exhibit A in the case of "Protestants do not love and honor Mary"

 

[Albion]

Albion

exhibit A in the case of "Protestants do not love and honor Mary"

Come on, Rhamiel. If we can't talk casually here without someone trying to take advantage of it and playact at being offended, or that a casual term--put in quotes precisely to indicate that it's slang--can't be used without opening oneself up to attack, there really is not enough respect to justify further discussion. And, BTW, you have done much worse yourself.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Sufficient, not scant.

I prefer to look at the quality of what is written in the Scriptures rather than at the quantity. Although the name Peter, Simon, and Kephas are mentioned 195 times in the course of the NT ( in second place is John at a mere 29 times), I accept Peter's primacy among the apostles simply by the content presented in eleven key passages.

The Incarnation, the Nativity, the Presentation, The Wedding at Cana, and the Crucifixion are not merely historical events that are past and done with, but rather pivotal events in the history of salvation of eschatological importance. Mary was a key player in all these events. I suppose you also think that the apostles were just bit players used by God.

Assuming that they are derived from legends, which is all you are doing 2000 years later with no leg to stand on. You might think that P is true, but that doesn't make P true.

PAX

Sufficient for what? For understanding her role in God's plan? To that I would agree. Sufficient for developing a host of legends which result in elevating her to demi-god status? I think not.

 

[Rhamiel]

Come on, Rhamiel. If we can't talk casually here without someone trying to take advantage of it and playact at being offended, or that a casual term--put in quotes precisely to indicate that it's slang--can't be used without opening oneself up to attack, there really is not enough respect to justify further discussion. And, BTW, you have done much worse yourself.

I really do not believe that most Protestants love or honor Mary

like other then a few Lutheran and a few Anglicans
the vast majority seem to just ignore her
or have a kind of distaste of any attention given to her

this whole "we love her, but in a different way" does not ring true to me
I do not see much evidence that they do love her

 

[Albion]

I prefer to look at the quality of what is written in the Scriptures rather than at the quantity.

Of course you would. That's the only way you can avoid the fact of this matter.

But my point remains valid. IF Mary were the human above all humans and endowed with powers we normally associate only with God--the Bible would certainly reflect that fact. It does not appear to do so.

Oh, yes, you can point to the few, passing, references to anything involving her that occur between the birth of Jesus and his Ascension, and claim that they speak volumes, outweigh everything else, or are the key to something spectacular. Or you can say that you'd rather go with Traditions instead of Scripture, anyway. Or you can claim that there are many hidden references to her. Or you can claim that half of the Old Testament is about her, if we only knew.

But the facts remain what they are, despite all the dodging and ducking.

 

[tadoflamb]

All generations shall call me a 'bit-player'.

 

[Albion]

I should have realized that those folks who pride themselves on heaping up praise for the Virgin would also seize any opportunity to make cheap jokes about what they've been telling the rest of us is so sacred to them.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, tell me when was the last time you called Mary " Blessed Mary " as all true Christians have throughout Christian history ?

 

[justinangel]

Sufficient for what? For understanding her role in God's plan? To that I would agree. Sufficient for developing a host of legends which result in elevating her to demi-god status? I think not.

It isn't the Church which has 'elevated' Mary above all other human beings in the order of divine grace. All the singular gifts and privileges she has received from God rest on the divine maternity.

"The Almighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name."
Luke 1, 49

PAX

 

[justinangel]

Of course you would. That's the only way you can avoid the fact of this matter.

There are no facts to avoid, since Protestant objections such as yours aren't based on anything substantial.

But my point remains valid. IF Mary were the human above all humans and endowed with powers we normally associate only with God--the Bible would certainly reflect that fact. It does not appear to do so.

What powers would these be? Intercessory ones? Mary delivers our petitions to God in and through Christ. And it is God who answers them. The graces we receive through Mary's patronage in collaboration with the Holy Spirit originate from God the Father. Catholics do not believe that the actual graces they receive come from Mary.

Oh, yes, you can point to the few, passing, references to anything involving her that occur between the birth of Jesus and his Ascension, and claim that they speak volumes, outweigh everything else, or are the key to something spectacular. Or you can say that you'd rather go with Traditions instead of Scripture, anyway. Or you can claim that there are many hidden references to her. Or you can claim that half of the Old Testament is about her, if we only knew.

Scripture must be interpreted in the light of Apostolic Tradition. The ECFs tell us that in their apologetic works against the heretics of their time.

But the facts remain what they are, despite all the dodging and ducking.

There can't be any facts without any real substance in your reasoning.

PAX

 

[bbbbbbb]

It isn't the Church which has 'elevated' Mary above all other human beings in the order of divine grace. All the singular gifts and privileges she has received from God rest on the divine maternity.

"The Almighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name."
Luke 1, 49

PAX

Did I really say "the Church has 'elevated' Mary above all other human beings in the order of divine grace."?

 

[Albion]

There are no facts to avoid, since Protestant objections such as yours aren't based on anything substantial.

I take that as an admission that you have no counter to the facts as presented.

What powers would these be? Intercessory ones? Mary delivers our petitions to God in and through Christ. And it is God who answers them. The graces we receive through Mary's patronage in collaboration with the Holy Spirit originate from God the Father. Catholics do not believe that the actual graces they receive come from Mary.

Of course you first ask me for my answer...and then proceed to give me yours instead. And it's naturally going to be to try to turn the attention to the milder of the practices directed at Mary, rather than some of the more controversial devotions that have already been mentioned to you.

But all right...here are some of them again.

Far from Mary being seen as merely delivering our petitions to God, she is called the Co-redemptrix of mankind, dispenser of all graces, the one who must approve of anything the Father grants to us, guarantor of us having a happy and blessed death (if we say the right prayers to her in advance, of course). Those examples represent something far beyond merely being a saint who hands our petitions to the Father (as though that were even necessary)!

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, the Church is not without scriptural support in this belief. Our Lord speaks of the possibility of sin being forgiven in the next world [ Matt12: 32 ] indicates/implies the possibility of Purgatory, [ since nothing unclean can enter heaven, Rev.]. In Rev.5:8 and 8:3, we find the angels and saints offering the prayers of the faithful [ The Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of our Lord, along with the intercession of the saints, particularly the martyrs ] offering the prayers of the faithful to God. As an Orthodox Roman Catholic I believe when both Sacred Apostolic Tradition and Holy Bible agree, then I also agree, and so should you.