marian apparitions

[mathinspiration]

Doesn't Paul say the devil sometimes pretends to be an angel with a divine message from God starting a false religion? If Marian sightings are delusions or false illusions or mirages or drug induced images, it is one thing but Satanic stuff is another. If a demon can appear as an angel, can it lie and say it is a saint?

 

[Mountainmike]

I would like to understand - I must have misunderstood?

The main underpinning is clearly too many ignore God who is displeased.
So clearly the prayers we have offered are not enough

Indeed at Fatima portugese authorities had vowed to "wipe out religion in a generation" is how bad it was there.

Mary tells us we are headed for a catastrophe, unless sufficient prayers and sacrifices are offered

Have you read "calls"?

I don't think this addresses anything I wrote. So I'm just going to leave the conversation here.

 

[Mountainmike]

It is why the church does not rush to judgement.

It awaits the fruits to know which is which. We are told in Luke 6:43

For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit

Doesn't Paul say the devil sometimes pretends to be an angel with a divine message from God starting a false religion? If Marian sightings are delusions or false illusions or mirages or drug induced images, it is one thing but Satanic stuff is another. If a demon can appear as an angel, can it lie and say it is a saint?

 

[Beloved2018]

I would like to understand - I must have misunderstood?

Okay, here we go, the apparition (or Lucia) said that 'no one' makes sacrifices or prays, and that is simply not true. Mary is one person, not to mention everyone in heaven. If we want to limit it to earth, we have the Masses and millions of Christians (including nuns and monks who have devoted their lives to this very thing).

The main underpinning is clearly too many ignore God who is displeased.
So clearly the prayers we have offered are not enough

If the Sacrifice of the Masses are not enough, then I don't know what else could be asked for.

Indeed at Fatima portugese authorities had vowed to "wipe out religion in a generation" is how bad it was there.

And yet she says later that faith will always remain in Portugal.

Mary tells us we are headed for a catastrophe, unless sufficient prayers and sacrifices are offered

It's like God ran out or something, when I know He hears the prayers of even the smallest child and that it is precious to Him. And we have the Mass, and we have Mary, the saints, each other, and the religious. It just doesn't make sense to me why (in a catholic context) God would not look down and smile upon all these sacrifices and prayers being sent up. Yet He demands more. We are not encouraged to continue what we are doing, but are told that all these things are ineffectual because people are going to hell. That just does not sound like the God or Holy Mother I know.

Have you read "calls"?

No. But I'm ordering it. I'll get back to you when I finish reading it.

 

[Mountainmike]

Are we not over complicating this?

Let's tackle issues one at a time.

" too many go to hell because there is no one to pray for them"

Take it at face value. There are indeed many who hear the word young, choose not to live it, they live a worldly life, causing outrage to God, and neither their family nor friends live the prayer life either, so no one is praying for them, least of all themselves. Even worse in a secular society as Portugal was destined to be at the time of Fatima, the authorities vowing to " rule out religion within a decade"

So without other third parties to pray for them the likely destination of those souls on a road to hell is unfortunate , but is stated in the gospel.

Our ladies role is intercessor. She urges all to pray so that she can pass on those prayers to Jesus, and she urges us all ( her spiritual offspring, rev 12) to both pray and do sacrifice for the souls that may be lost, warning us of the destination of humanity if we don't.

How is that other than the message of the gospel - our lady giving it greater urgency ?

Okay, here we go, the apparition (or Lucia) said that 'no one' makes sacrifices or prays, and that is simply not true. Mary is one person, not to mention everyone in heaven. If we want to limit it to earth, we have the Masses and millions of Christians (including nuns and monks who have devoted their lives to this very thing).



If the Sacrifice of the Masses are not enough, then I don't know what else could be asked for.



And yet she says later that faith will always remain in Portugal.



It's like God ran out or something, when I know He hears the prayers of even the smallest child and that it is precious to Him. And we have the Mass, and we have Mary, the saints, each other, and the religious. It just doesn't make sense to me why (in a catholic context) God would not look down and smile upon all these sacrifices and prayers being sent up. Yet He demands more. We are not encouraged to continue what we are doing, but are told that all these things are ineffectual because people are going to hell. That just does not sound like the God or Holy Mother I know.



No. But I'm ordering it. I'll get back to you when I finish reading it.

 

[Beloved2018]

I don't believe I'm over complicating this. But I am looking at this from the perspective of those who were praying all around the world and who were making sacrifices. Btw, ' Calls', is due to arrive around the 4th.

Are we not over complicating this?

Let's tackle issues one at a time.

" too many go to hell because there is no one to pray for them"

Take it at face value. There are indeed many who hear the word young, choose not to live it, they live a worldly life, causing outrage to God, and neither their family nor friends live the prayer life either, so no one is praying for them, least of all themselves. Even worse in a secular society as Portugal was destined to be at the time of Fatima, the authorities vowing to " rule out religion within a decade"

So without other third parties to pray for them the likely destination of those souls on a road to hell is unfortunate , but is stated in the gospel.

Our ladies role is intercessor. She urges all to pray so that she can pass on those prayers to Jesus, and she urges us all ( her spiritual offspring, rev 12) to both pray and do sacrifice for the souls that may be lost, warning us of the destination of humanity if we don't.

How is that other than the message of the gospel - our lady giving it greater urgency ?

 

[Phil 1:21]

" too many go to hell because there is no one to pray for them"

According to whom? Where in scripture does God state our salvation is contingent upon the prayers of others?

Our ladies role is intercessor.

" For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" 1 Timothy 2:5

 

[Mountainmike]

Scripture is FULL of references to Prayer for others , it is not just a catholic thing!

“pray for one another, that you may be healed” (James 5:16).

"I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matt 5:43)

We must assume that the prayer can be effective, otherwise why are we asked to do it?

According to whom? Where in scripture does God state our salvation is contingent upon the prayers of others?

" For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" 1 Timothy 2:5

 

[Phil 1:21]

Scripture is FULL of references to Prayer for others , it is not just a catholic thing!

“pray for one another, that you may be healed” (James 5:16).

"I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matt 5:43)

We must assume that the prayer can be effective, otherwise why are we asked to do it?

That’s not what I asked.

Where in scripture does God state our salvation is contingent upon the prayers of others?

The answer? Nowhere.

 

[Mountainmike]

And that is the problem with "proof text" sola scriptura people looking for individual verses for each eventuality. But the bible neither is nor claims to be a complete manual on christian belief and practice.

You need to read the bible holistically, and read the church fathers to see what it means ie what the apostles handed down as the true fatih (paradosis, tradition)

Salvation is not automatic, Jesus made it possible to be saved, he did not make it inevitable. It also requires individiual assent ( and a heap of other "do this, dont do thats" we wont get into here)

So praying for conversion of ourselves and others - that all accept the good news, and assent, ie convert is clearly scriptural and their assent is a condition of salvation - that THEY assent to the gospel, so we pray for it!

Indeed it is worse than that..

Failing to spread the gospel can hurt your own salvation
Checkout Ezekiel 3:17-19

Catholics ARE bible christians.

I ask you again, if prayer for others has no benefit to their salvation or ours why are we asked to do it? What is the point?

That’s not what I asked.

The answer? Nowhere.

 

[Phil 1:21]

And that is the problem with "proof text" sola scriptura people looking for individual verses for each eventuality.

The problem being that we refuse to add to and twist scripture to make it say something it doesn't say? Guilty as charged. and gladly so.

So in summary: nowhere in scripture does God state what you have claimed, that our eternal salvation is contingent upon the prayers of others. Thanks.

 

[Beloved2018]

I just want to interject (as someone who was raised Confessional Lutheran) this is not what Sola Scriptura means to Lutherans....carry on...

And that is the problem with "proof text" sola scriptura people looking for individual verses for each eventuality. But the bible neither is nor claims to be a complete manual on christian belief and practice.

You need to read the bible holistically, and read the church fathers to see what it means ie what the apostles handed down as the true fatih (paradosis, tradition)

Salvation is not automatic, Jesus made it possible to be saved, he did not make it inevitable. It also requires individiual assent ( and a heap of other "do this, dont do thats" we wont get into here)

So praying for conversion of ourselves and others - that all accept the good news, and assent, ie convert is clearly scriptural and their assent is a condition of salvation - that THEY assent to the gospel, so we pray for it!

Indeed it is worse than that..

Failing to spread the gospel can hurt your own salvation
Checkout Ezekiel 3:17-19

Catholics ARE bible christians.

I ask you again, if prayer for others has no benefit to their salvation or ours why are we asked to do it? What is the point?

 

[Mountainmike]

I just want to interject (as someone who was raised Confessional Lutheran) this is not what Sola Scriptura means to Lutherans....carry on...

I am aware of the various flavours of it, trouble is there's a fatal logical flaw in all the definitions. Indeed the difference between material and formal sufficiency

. I came from Protestant and evangelical before the early fathers writings convinced me to come home.

The point I made was more general, and believed by many so called " bible Christians" - a very modern phenomenon -who expect to find a definitive answer to all questions, Alas it isn't as simple as that.

 

[Beloved2018]

I am aware of the various flavours of it, trouble is there's a fatal logical flaw in all the definitions. Indeed the difference between material and formal sufficiency

. I came from Protestant and evangelical before the early fathers writings convinced me to come home.

The point I made was more general, and believed by many so called " bible Christians" - a very modern phenomenon -who expect to find a definitive answer to all questions, Alas it isn't as simple as that.

But it's not as simple as that. Confessional Lutherans don't hold to this definition of sola scriptura. I mean the very fact that they are Confessional speaks to this. They keep to the creeds, the liturgy and the fathers (just not one particular father, or one particular school of thought). I'm not trying to arguing with you, it's just, I grew up in a Confessional Lutheran Church and this definition simply does not apply to them.

 

[Mountainmike]

But it's not as simple as that. Confessional Lutherans don't hold to this definition of sola scriptura. I mean the very fact that they are Confessional speaks to this. They keep to the creeds, the liturgy and the fathers (just not one particular father, or one particular school of thought). I'm not trying to arguing with you, it's just, I grew up in a Confessional Lutheran Church and this definition simply does not apply to them.

I think there is a misunderstanding here - I didn't give a definition of sola scriptura, or solo scriptura.

I noted a common trait amongst many who do hold to sola scriptura, particularly latter day evangelical bible Christians.

But the Lutheran position is clearly a problem.
It demands you sign up to LUTHERS catechism and concord, elevating it to the status of truth,when it is clearly at odds with early church tradition, and so is in every way luthers own man made tradition, he elevates to the same status as scripture! LUTHERS presumed necessity demonstrated he knew scripture cannot stand alone, since you are forced to take HIS personal interpretation of it.

 

[Beloved2018]

I think there is a misunderstanding here - I didn't give a definition of sola scriptura, or solo scriptura.

I noted a common trait amongst many who do hold to sola scriptura, particularly latter day evangelical bible Christians.

But the Lutheran position is clearly a problem.
It demands you sign up to LUTHERS catechism and concord, elevating it to the status of truth,when it is clearly at odds with early church tradition, and so is in every way luthers own man made tradition, he elevates to the same status as scripture! LUTHERS presumed necessity demonstrated he knew scripture cannot stand alone, since you are forced to take HIS personal interpretation of it.

Most of the Confessions are not written by Luther (he already passed on. Luther's catechism specifically, doesn't contradict anything Rome teaches (with the exception of limiting the sacraments to Baptism and the Eucharist, but that is only because of how the term 'sacrament' is defined. Lutherans don't squabble over the exact number of Sacraments. It's just not an issue for them.) Regarding the rest, I don't even agree with some of it, so I'm not trying to be an apologist for Lutheranism. All I'm saying, is that for them, they believe their teachings are in-line with the Church Fathers et all. Whether they truly are or not, is not really my concern right now. Growing up, sometimes I wish I had the freedom to just pick up the Bible and say, 'I disagree' and for that to be okay. But it wasn't and that's what I'm saying to you, I didn't experience the Sola Scriptura freedom of me and my Bible.

 

[Mountainmike]

The problem I highlight is not whether the confessions are right or wrong, but that ALL Protestants have found it necessary to add " explanation" or " interpretation " to scripture in this way. Which is demonstration that scripture is not " formally sufficient" ( scripture alone - protestant) but it is only " materially sufficient" ( which accords with catholic belief), or why was it necessary to add confessions?
Protestants belief is self contradicting, accusing Catholics of adding to scripture when the confessions do just the same!


Authority is needed to " add" the correct interpretation, our catechism, which is the role of tradition ( i.e. Faith handed down) which was there was before the New Testament was confirmed by authority - which canon was chosen because it agreed with the faith handed down. Some books rejected for the same reason.

The moment you accept that interpretation needs adding, then you have to go back to the earliest times to find it. Documents in essence created for the first time in 16 th century clearly cannot be the authentic tradition. Not least in the english church where the number and variety of articles from more Calvinist to more catholic has blown with the whims of monarchs. So cannot be true for that reason: the truth cannot change, and certainly not at the whim of a monarch.


Protestants do not appear to engage with the history( I know... I was one! Using all the false anti catholic arguments) , for example ...the first published canon ( marcions) was roundly rejected as heretical. So showing authority was needed to accept or oppose scripture canon i.e. " bind and loose"

I don't claim to be an expert, but I do know much of the basis for why Catholics believe what they do - I spent years searching it out - and even clear scriptural basis in most part. Take " queen of heaven" and intercesdion is a clear reference back to davidic times. Christ tried to align himself as a davidic king, even riding on a donkey as Done in solomons time, So clearly wanted the parallels drawn, Protestants seem to miss most of this, Am happy to answer questions as best I can.

Most of the Confessions are not written by Luther (he already passed on. Luther's catechism specifically, doesn't contradict anything Rome teaches (with the exception of limiting the sacraments to Baptism and the Eucharist, but that is only because of how the term 'sacrament' is defined. Lutherans don't squabble over the exact number of Sacraments. It's just not an issue for them.) Regarding the rest, I don't even agree with some of it, so I'm not trying to be an apologist for Lutheranism. All I'm saying, is that for them, they believe their teachings are in-line with the Church Fathers et all. Whether they truly are or not, is not really my concern right now. Growing up, sometimes I wish I had the freedom to just pick up the Bible and say, 'I disagree' and for that to be okay. But it wasn't and that's what I'm saying to you, I didn't experience the Sola Scriptura freedom of me and my Bible.

 

[Phil 1:21]

The problem I highlight is not whether the confessions are right or wrong, but that ALL Protestants have found it necessary to add " explanation" or " interpretation " to scripture in this way.

Really? ALL?

 

[Mountainmike]

Really? ALL?

Other than the ones who think their own personal interpretation is infallible. In ditching the pope they become their own.

What basis have they to believe their own version of Eucharist, baptism, salvation, moral theology, whatever is right, when an army of other Protestants have mutually exclusive interpretations and disagree profoundly on every issue? To believe they alone are right...

That's the reason Protestants fracture. There is no compass or authority.
So they drift away from what the apostles taught in early church, since they fail to pay heed to early fathers taught by apostles.

The non denom creed is any personal,interpretation of scripture is good enough, whether or not it opposes most or all others.

All other Protestant groups say they discern the spirit. But proof that fails is they all disagree on almost every issue.

I am not attacking anyone , but these are fundamental questions that set me on the journey that led back to Rome.

 

[Phil 1:21]

"And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom." Matthew 27:50-51a

I can almost see the masses of people charging up the temple steps, needles and thread in hand.