marian apparitions

[Albion]

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.

Exactly as Catholics do, in other words.

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?

Sola Scriptura does not mean either that it is self-interpreting or that everyone will understand it. It means that Scripture ALONE is our guide to essential doctrine. Does this help?

 

[Mountainmike]

"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.

Which in jest, illustrates a serious problem. What words meant then, are not the same as idiom now - another reason why personal interpretation of scripture can be flawed.

 

[Mountainmike]

Exactly as Catholics do, in other words.


Sola Scriptura does not mean either that it is self-interpreting or that everyone will understand it. It means that Scripture ALONE is our guide to essential doctrine. Does this help?

I know what you think, and also why throwing thebaby out with the bath water has led countless Protestants astray.

Do you understand the difference between material and formal sufficiency?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Which in jest, illustrates a serious problem. What words meant then, are not the same as idiom now - another reason why personal interpretation of scripture can be flawed.

Absolutely personal interpretation of scripture can be flawed...whether that person is a Protestant in Detroit or the Pope in Rome.

 

[Albion]

That's the reason Protestants fracture. There is no compass or authority.

And yet, the church which has, in history, suffered the most significant schisms and lost the greatest number of adherents through schism is...the Catholic Church.

 

[Mountainmike]

Absolutely personal interpretation of scripture can be flawed...whether that person is a Protestant in Detroit or the Pope in Rome.

Not according to scripture.

When either the apostles successors or peters successor alone " bind and loose" i.e. Rule on doctrinal interpretation they do so with the authority of heaven.( but It is very rare for the pope to pronounce ex cathedra) twice? Three times?
That IS what bind and loose means and meant to the Jewish audience.

That is why the church is the " pillar and foundation of truth" expressed in council

 

[Mountainmike]

And yet, the church which has, in history, suffered the most significant schisms and lost the greatest number of adherents through schism is...the Catholic Church.

Hardly.

It is still the big tree from which others groups splinter.

 

[Albion]

It is still the big tree from which others groups splinter.

...which only confirms what I wrote.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Not according to scripture.

When either the apostles successors or peters successor alone " bind and loose" i.e. Rule on doctrinal interpretation they do so with the authority of heaven.( but It is very rare for the pope to pronounce ex cathedra) twice? Three times?
That IS what bind and loose means and meant to the Jewish audience.

That is why the church is the " pillar and foundation of truth" expressed in council

Apparently your Bible has the words "Roman Catholic Church" and "pope" embedded in Matthew 18:18.

 

[Mountainmike]

Apparently your Bible has the words "Roman Catholic Church" and "pope" embedded in Matthew 18:18.

No.

The scripture itself does.
Did you not know the meaning of bind and loose?
Evidently not,


And you say Roman Catholic Church.
It was just the ( only) universal church till others split away .

 

[Mountainmike]

...which only confirms what I wrote.

I pointed out simply that it is not just "a" church as you imply. It is on that I disagreed.

It was the ONLY church from earliest times till others (with no early history of their own) split away.so It cannot be considered just another denomination, or comparable , it was and is the root and trunk, the acorn from which all others grow.

It is hardly surprising others have schisms small in comparison, they are for the most part insignificant in numbers of congregation, the most significant number is the number of splits they have endured and flavours of mutually exclusive doctrine.

Meanwhile Catholicism remains almost unchanged since earliest times.

It has held on to moral teaching for example whilst all others have yielded to populist whims...to the point RC say to the Anglican synod for example, it is difficult to hold ecumenical talks because the synod no longer represents any coherent views. The house divided that cannot stand.

 

[Albion]

I pointed out simply that it is not just "a" church as you imply. It is on that I disagreed.

But while that is strictly a personal opinion, it isn't what I was referring to. IF we take your view of church history and consider the Catholic Church to be the original one, then there is no question but that it has experienced the most serious and largest schisms in Christian history.

Meanwhile Catholicism remains almost unchanged since earliest times.

That's far from true, but I'm sure that you've been taught that the church has never changed.

 

[Phil 1:21]

And you say Roman Catholic Church.
It was just the ( only) universal church till others split away .

Tou may want to talk to the Orthodox church about that.

 

[Mountainmike]

Tou may want to talk to the Orthodox church about that.

No mystery.
The Orthodox Church split away from THE church, only after that was it necessary to state Roman to describe the remaining catholic universal church,

Having first accepted the " primacy of honour" of the bishop of Rome, indeed - from iraneus even to Augustine listing the popes as authority ( that case on donatism) , the eastern s went their own way.

They clearly split from the root. They are not the root that believed in and stated in council the primacy of Rome,

The schism almost healing but for a vote of one centuries later...

a few arcane theological differences too.

Like ....they accept as they must the real presence, indeed in the liturgy quoting Justin Martyr, saying " is the flesh of Jesus" they leave as a mystery how, preferring not to state that by simple logic If it was bread, is now flesh, it therefore by definition changed substance, or,

They accept as they must that only pure things get to heaven, knowing they are not, but do not go the next step and leave as a mystery that their must have been a process of purgation / theosis, in which prayers after death are effective , we name the process or state purgatory, but otherwise say little about it,

In short they leave as a mystery, things we give a name to.

Or the even more arcane matter of Filioque.
Few can understand it, let alone argue it!

Then much misunderstood area of original sin. The problem is most of the analogies like " stain" misrepresent catholic theology, which in reality in essence declares the absence not the presence of a something, and so create a wedge of assumed division where there is little.

But compared to the rest of the post reformation. Churches our theological differences are small.
Because orthodox unlike most post reformation churches retain early church fathers and council decisions, they just fractured into a variety of autonomous and autocephalous churches. So are not the origin, athough they remain faithful to most of the theology.

I love orthodox / eastern spirituality, and much prefer their celebration of such as advent.

 

[Mountainmike]

I didn't dispute the fact or size of the schism

I simply point out, that the reason Protestant churches have not schismed on such a scale, is they never had the scale, always being many more smaller entities.

And.. it was not " a church" that schismed, implied not stated in your original, that it was one of a number.
It was THE church that schismed (as in only)

The point I make I suspect you agree with:

That there is a present situation. In which new Christians seemingly have a choice between parallel churches and denominations of similar standing. Where personal affinity guides a choice, History records that that is just a post reformation way of thinking.

For the first few hundred years there was but one, and then easterns fractured away to a variety of autocephalous and autonomous churches under the banner orthodox that respected almost all of the same doctrine, indeed we regard mamy sacraments equally valid.


The free for all on doctrinal division and endless denominations and non denoms is a very recent thing, and that leads to new Christians thinking of RC as just another church of similar standing to others.
But None of the others but Roman and orthodox can claim any substantive history. So not similar. They are the trunk and root of all.

As for " have been taught" not changed - not so.
A lone journey of searching in my case.
A clue here or there.
By the time I came to RCIA I was deemed to understand all that was needed


I studied early fathers and chose the only church that still retains what they believed. Eventually when 95 percent fits you take the 5 on trust, since you can rule all others out as being inconsistent with the early church.

But while that is strictly a personal opinion, it isn't what I was referring to. IF we take your view of church history and consider the Catholic Church to be the original one, then there is no question but that it has experienced the most serious and largest schisms in Christian history.



That's far from true, but I'm sure that you've been taught that the church has never changed.

 

[thecolorsblend]

What do you believe about Marian apparitions? Do you believe in them? And do you believe that they are Mary or are they a demon? And which ones do you accept?

I personally accept just two Our lady of Walsingham and Our Lady of Guadelupe

Assuming these apparitions are real (meaning some kind of supernatural manifestation occurred), the cause is unlikely to be demonic. I say this because the dark forces aren't likely to instruct people to accept Christ, which is what the apparitions are claimed to have done. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Broadly speaking, there's always the chance that the witnesses all lied about what they saw. So if these apparitions never actually happened, obviously then they're not worth bothering with.

My Church recognizes quite a few apparitions. A list can be found at Marian apparition - Wikipedia for those interested.

The ones I relate to the most are Our Lady of Lourdes and Our Lady of Guadalupe.

 

[ripple the car]

What do you believe about Marian apparitions? Do you believe in them? And do you believe that they are Mary or are they a demon? And which ones do you accept?

I personally accept just two Our lady of Walsingham and Our Lady of Guadelupe

I accept Soufaniyeh, Akita, and Garabandal. And Zeitun.

And Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadalupe. Still learning about this.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I accept Soufaniyeh, Akita, and Garabandal. And Zeitun.

And Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadalupe. Still learning about this.

Marian apparitions make for an interesting subject because the authoritative ones show Our Lady confessing Our Lord came in the flesh, sometimes miraculous healings and other things. There's a lot to be learned about them and from them.

 

[ripple the car]

Marian apparitions make for an interesting subject because the authoritative ones show Our Lady confessing Our Lord came in the flesh, sometimes miraculous healings and other things. There's a lot to be learned about them and from them.

Thank you! It's a mine of information. Still have years worth of stuff to learn, but learning slowly.

 

[ripple the car]

Soufaniyeh is especially fascinating to me, especially as someone outside of both Churches, but with a great deal of appreciation and respect for both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Our Lady of Soufanieh