Mary - Christian Prototype

[Paul Yohannan]

There have been thousands of medically documented healing sat Lourdes. These are in the 20th Century, with consequences to the healed such as the loss of permanent government disability benefits. About 70 of them have gone through the full vetting process and been declared miracles by the Church (to wit: the condition had to be medically documented to have really existed, the cure had to be instantaneous and completed, without relapse afterwards. The individual does not have to have been saintly or anything like that: this is the factual statement that a miracle occurred, not a political vetting for sainthood).

The fact of these miracles - there are about 70 formally declared ones, but ten thousand others that have been declared scientifically inexplicable, but that don't have the full paperwork panoply to declare them formal miracles.

So, what these miracles represent is a TRUE theological issue, not simply a point of tension. Real, verifiable, modern world miracles, medically examined, in our lifetimes, at a specifically Marian shrine in scientific, socialist France.

This could well be legitimate. I myself don't see a problem with Lourdes.

Of the officially sanctioned apparitions by the RCC, the only one I raise eyebrows over is Fatima; the Orthodox Church has concerns about the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart devotions owing to a doctrinal reason (we are not sure whether devotions to the anatomy of our Lord or the Theotokos in the abstract is desirable).

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I do by the way have grave reservations concerning non-sanctioned Marian apparitions, for example, the alleged "Our Lady of Amsterdam," and especially, Medjugorje. Fortunately, my views are shared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

I think the pathway to ecumenical reconciliation between the Orthodox and Rome would be greatly obstructed if either were to be officially recognized.

 

[Vicomte13]

No, no, no.

There is a way of ascertaining whether or not an apparent healing is genuine, and that is, we must look to see if the condition returns, and if the healing occurs within the canonical Orthodox church.

There were several instances where a person was apparently miraculously healed or delivered from demons, in order to give confidence to the exprcist or promote some schism; in most cases, the condition returned. One demon might depart and be replaced by a thousand far worse than the first.

The reason the issue bites down so hard theologically is that the miracles are real and both medically and religiously vetted, that there is nowhere ELSE besides Lourdes where this happens with anything remotely approaching this degree of frequency, and that it specifically happened at a place where Mary appeared, within a shrine built and dedicated to her there. Real miracles in a shrine to Mary. The significance of those facts cannot be exuded, because it means that EITHER God is manifesting abundant divine favor at a specific spot specifically devoted to the Virgin Mary - vouching for the validity of the Catholic devotion to Mary just exactly 'like that", OR this is a flat, open and continuous demonstration of Satan's power. There is no honest middle ground, because the volume of hearings is huge, there's an International Medical committee there documenting it, the miracles are real, there's no OTHER spot earth with anything like this scale and scope of miracles and cures occurring under the eyes of modern science, and it's at a Catholic shrine TO Mary, built on the spot of a series of Marian visitations in 1835.

It ANSWERS questions, in ways that lots of people don't want them answered. To avoid those implications, all anybody can do is be dishonest and ignore the subject, or blaspheme the Holy Spirut by attacking it all as Satanic. It was against that very line of argument that I addressed my original comments. It's against the "It's not real" line of argument that I've addressed. These.

Lourdes is real, and what it proves is that God uses Mary as emissary, and approves of what the Catholics have done there, or He would stop dong the miracles.

It's real and it's divine, and it carries theological content, about Mary's role, that is not in the Bible.
That's why it's so important.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Miraculous healings are attributed to non-Christian religions like Buddhism. In that case, such miracles must be regarded as deceptions.

Now, I regard the RC as effectively Orthodox, and am inclined to believe in the authenticity of its miracles, having observed them first hand.

Our Orthodox bishops however have to take a very cautious approach as we work towards ecumenical relations. Since Rome was separated with us, basically everything that happened in the RCC after 1054 has to be looked at carefully. Some Orthodox take a view that we can't accept any RC saints post-schism; I disagree, because we venerate St. Isaac the Syrian, who was Nestorian. Of course there are some Orthodox traditionalists desperately seeking to dispute that, by claiming there were two Isaacs, one an Orthodox who wrote the material they agree with, the other the Nestorian whose more controversial work has recently been translated by Sebastian Brock, but to me this seems a bit of wishful thinking.

Note I use the word Nestorian here a bit loosely, referring to a member of the Church of the East.

 

[Vicomte13]

I do by the way have grave reservations concerning non-sanctioned Marian apparitions, for example, the alleged "Our Lady of Amsterdam," and especially, Medjugorje. Fortunately, my views are shared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

I think the pathway to ecumenical reconciliation between the Orthodox and Rome would be greatly obstructed if either were to be officially recognized.

I think concretely, so I pay particular attention to miracles that leave physically examinable evidence. So for me , for example, Lourdes is a theological fact of equal authority with any other because the healing are real and superabundant, and verified by an international committee of medical professionals. That medicine took notice of what happens there, because we don't know how to cure some conditions that have been cured at Lourdes - this is part of what gives the reported facts of Lourdes reality for me. Then too, the fact that the girl who saw Mary there, Bernadette Soubirous - St Bernadette - did not decay after her death and is still incorrupt is more exam unable proof that the Lourdes phenomemon is real, and divine in origin. The Protestants are right insofar as they say that Mary's particular elevation to the role of messenger of God is not in Scripture. But the fact of the Lourdes hearings and the I corruption of St Bernadette, who saw Mary there in1835, come together to answer several questions for me. First, divine revelation, of a visible and public variety, did not end with the closing of the First Century. God continues public revelation to this day, and has done so specifically using the Virgin Mary as his emissary. This is indisputable fact: Lourdes and Bernadette's I corruption prove it. Which means that Sola Scriptural as a doctrine cannot stand: the Bible does not contain all revelation. See Lourdes.

The other thing it proves is that , despite the ugly sins of the past, God has not abandoned the Catholic Church. Lourdes is a Catholic place, not.a different sect. There is no Baptist or Mormon Lourdes. There is no OTHER Lourdes. This does NOT prove that the other churches are all wrong, and it doesn't prove that the Catholic Church is right about everything it does. What it DOES prove is that the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit remain VISIBLY with the Catholic Church in a.very.public way. It also means that the level of devotion to Mary found at Lourdes, a Marian shrine, is fully acceptable to God. If not, there would have never been the cornucopia of healing miracles there, and they would not still be continuing.

The only real challenge to anything I've just said - and by that I mean the only challenge that I consider to be thoughtful (challenges of denial are simply ignorant - I know the facts of what happens at Lourdes, so I dismiss the claims that nothing does as the foolish opinions of ignoramuses who have not studied and do not know) is the challenge that what happens at Lourdes is a demonstration of demonic power. My answer to THAT is Jesus' own words on the matter, and hid stern warning to not ascribe to Satan that which is holy. I recognize that Lourdes is fatal to Bible Alone Christianity, but I recognize that it is for the same reason that Jesus was fatal to Pharisaic Judaism: the scriptures of the time (then and now) did not clearly contain reference to the new thing that God was doing, and earnest people who really want God to be reducible to a text they can master reject anything that God does that goes beyond their text and traditions. But Lourdes puts the Kenosha on that way of thinking just as Jesus did. Fact is, God is not cost rained by human traditions written or oral, and when he moves in a new and surprising way, one either recognizes God through the fruit of his actions, or one repeats the fatal error of the First Century Jewish establishment and denies God because God did not respect the human rules that thought they had him all figured out.

 

[Vicomte13]

There is a reversal. What once proved being sent from God, will now prove being sent from Satan. The truth has been established and is the written word of God in scripture. By this we test all prophets.

So, to be clear, you ascribe the healings at Lourdes, tens of thousands of them, all to the power of Satan. Satan can heal the blind and paralytic, and terminal cancer patient, in an instant, without relapse.

And you believe this because of the Bible.

Really?

 

[Vicomte13]

Miraculous healings are attributed to non-Christian religions like Buddhism. In that case, such miracles must be regarded as deceptions.

There is no Buddhist Lourdes or anything like it. There probably are Buddhist faith hearings, which are really internal processes of individual healing empowered by Hypnotic suggestion. To the extent, though , that there is a truly miraculous healing - example: a boy born blind gains his sight, or a long term paralytic is able to rise and walk, or the spontaneous remission and reversal of Stage 4 pancreatic cancer, this must be attributed to God, because Satan cannot do such things. If he could, the whole world would soon be worshipping him because he would be doing it everywhere in exchange for worship. He can't. That was Jesus' point, and why Jesus said that one could believe on his miracles, and could know the truth of a belief by its fruits.

Areal healing.is by God, wherever it happens. There is no Buddhist Lourdes, or any other Lourdes, precisely because oGod only performs a river of public miracles in his true, favored Church. Lourdes is the single best proof to a Catholic that, in spite of the errors and evils if the ages, and the scandals, that nevertheless God is here and remains with the Church.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

There probably are Buddhist faith hearings, which are really internal processes of individual healing empowered by Hypnotic suggestion.

There are places of pilgrimage and miraculous healings across a wide range of religions. Any healings that occur outside of the Church, however we define it (and I am forced to define it as the Orthodox Church, plus any churches we may enter into communion with in the future, assuming we ever do), that have the effect of causing anyone to convert away from Holy Orthodoxy, are likely the result of dark forces.

Because the Orthodox Churches, and any other churches we might restore communion with, which I hope will be the Roman Catholic church, or part od it, and if we are lucky, some traditionalist Protestant denominations, are of a certainty the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church mentioned in the Creed, anything that causes anyone to leave the holy Orthodox church has to be rejected.

 

[Vicomte13]

There are places of pilgrimage and miraculous healings across a wide range of religions. Any healings that occur outside of the Church, however we define it (and I am forced to define it as the Orthodox Church, plus any churches we may enter into communion with in the future, assuming we ever do), that have the effect of causing anyone to convert away from Holy Orthodoxy, are likely the result of dark forces.

Because the Orthodox Churches, and any other churches we might restore communion with, which I hope will be the Roman Catholic church, or part od it, and if we are lucky, some traditionalist Protestant denominations, are of a certainty the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church mentioned in the Creed, anything that causes anyone to leave the holy Orthodox church has to be rejected.

There is nothing like Lourdes anywhere in the world. France is the birthplace of modern medicine, and once things began to happen at Lourdes, professional medical interest was aroused. For over a century there has been an iinternational medical committee there, recording what happens, getting medical history, reducing the events to the realm of scientific data, and evaluating what has occurred to determine whether or not iit is scientifically explainable. It is not some body of imams or Seamus who makes the scientific evaluation, but professional medical People. They didn't come there to prove something religious, but because the healing of medically incurable cases is of interest to science. This is France, not Burma.

Truth is, thousands of these medically inexplicable hearings have happened there, with great regularity., under the nose of science, documented by medical personnel, not merely testified to by Mystics and enthusiasts. There are mystic sites all over the world. None of them are anything like Lourdes, because none of them are documented scientific data - just anecdotes of religious believers. Those other places are more obscure. They do not have the sheer volume of miracle, and none are within the data set of modern science. Lourdes is, because Lourdes is the real thing, a fountain of miracles of God, proof of the divine agency of Mary, disproof of all who deny the emissarial role of Mary, and disproof of the doctrine that miracle ended in the First Century. It is one of the ways that I know for sure that the Catholic religion is real, because these miracles are in the province of science. The LACK of any other place like Lourdes - any other place with thousands of scientifically documented, inexplicable medical events - is itself a significant data point. Lourdes is. And it is unique. And the girl who saw Mary is herself incorrupt. And all of that is a clear and unambiguous revelation from God, which features prominently in my certitude that Catholicism is the real deal, proven in the modern world, by the modern Western science to which I give such great respect.

Personal revelation and the NDE's of the blind makes me a theist. The Shroud of Turin makes me a Christian. The Incorrupt make me a Catholic. The Lanciano miracle causes me to really accept transsubstatuation, and Lourdes convinces me of the significance of Mary, of the necessity of going past just the Bible to understand God's working with us, and that God continues to abide in the Church in spite of the sins and crimes and horrors of the Catholic past, distant and recent. My religion is proven to me by scientifically examinable miracle. I think that the same approach could give immense comfort and certitude to many others, too. God does these miracles in public and leaves examinable evidence of them for a REASON. Lourdes exists under the eyes of modern science for a reason. The lack of any OTHER Lourdes in the world ALSO has a reason.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

There is nothing like Lourdes anywhere in the world. France is the birthplace of modern medicine, and once things began to happen at Lourdes, professional medical interest was aroused. For over a century there has been an iinternational medical committee there, recording what happens, getting medical history, reducing the events to the realm of scientific data, and evaluating what has occurred to determine whether or not iit is scientifically explainable. It is not some body of imams or Seamus who makes the scientific evaluation, but professional medical People. They didn't come there to prove something religious, but because the healing of medically incurable cases is of interest to science. This is France, not Burma.

Truth is, thousands of these medically inexplicable hearings have happened there, with great regularity., under the nose of science, documented by medical personnel, not merely testified to by Mystics and enthusiasts. There are mystic sites all over the world. None of them are anything like Lourdes, because none of them are documented scientific data - just anecdotes of religious believers. Those other places are more obscure. They do not have the sheer volume of miracle, and none are within the data set of modern science. Lourdes is, because Lourdes is the real thing, a fountain of miracles of God, proof of the divine agency of Mary, disproof of all who deny the emissarial role of Mary, and disproof of the doctrine that miracle ended in the First Century. It is one of the ways that I know for sure that the Catholic religion is real, because these miracles are in the province of science. The LACK of any other place like Lourdes - any other place with thousands of scientifically documented, inexplicable medical events - is itself a significant data point. Lourdes is. And it is unique. And the girl who saw Mary is herself incorrupt. And all of that is a clear and unambiguous revelation from God, which features prominently in my certitude that Catholicism is the real deal, proven in the modern world, by the modern Western science to which I give such great respect.

Personal revelation and the NDE's of the blind makes me a theist. The Shroud of Turin makes me a Christian. The Incorrupt make me a Catholic. The Lanciano miracle causes me to really accept transsubstatuation, and Lourdes convinces me of the significance of Mary, of the necessity of going past just the Bible to understand God's working with us, and that God continues to abide in the Church in spite of the sins and crimes and horrors of the Catholic past, distant and recent. My religion is proven to me by scientifically examinable miracle. I think that the same approach could give immense comfort and certitude to many others, too. God does these miracles in public and leaves examinable evidence of them for a REASON. Lourdes exists under the eyes of modern science for a reason. The lack of any OTHER Lourdes in the world ALSO has a reason.

Am aware of no Bishop discouraging visits to Lourdes. On the other hand I am aware of Bishops discourging visits to honor/venerate other alleged apparitions of Saint Mary. So am not sure why a Catholic should be troubled about an imagined status or lack of status of the miracles said to occur at Lourdes. By definition a miracle is faith in an act being supernatural. What sort of faith requires "proof"?

I would think the following statement applies and should be enough for the faithful to accept without insisting the Church "authenticate" every miracle.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 1

"Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations"."​

 

[Vicomte13]

What sort of faith requires "proof"?

Mine.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Mine.

So you require proof before you will believe in miracles. I was not getting that from your post. But OK if you say so, perhaps I missed the detail. In what manner has Lourdes been "proven" to you (other than the testimony of others)?

BTW, the Church to my knowledge has never denied miracles have occurred there, regardless of whether one personally witnessed a miracle or not. If one did, then we should be happy to hear of it.

Again if something can be "proved" to us as true, am not sure in what sense I can say faith is required for me to believe it. I do not need some "verification", nor do I see the Church teaching it's required, for my faith in something as absolutely being a miracle requires the Church first declare it is indeed a miracle before my belief that it is so becomes valid. The quote given from the Catechism demonstrates that understanding as well. I also rather prefer the Church not be in the business of telling me what I am allowed/not allowed in my lifetime of observations to see as a miracle, as in I saw it and believe it to be one.

Just as I prefer the Church not attempt to tell us something that cannot be proven/disproved in regards to some things, absent a Divine declaration one way or the other. Creation involving evolution being a good example as something Catholics can freely believe or not believe as long as they acknowledge God's hand in it.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Mine.

Also going to add that I did not need Lourdes to make me believe the Church teachings on Saint Mary, which at least the prior post could strongly seen as required for a faith in those teachings about Saint Mary.

 

[Philip_B]

I think I have trouble with the 'proof' word, maybe if I was a lawyer I might be happier with it, however there is too much of an accountant in me to use the word. I do think we need evidence, and the comes a time where on the basis of the evidence we conclude that we are prepared to stick our neck out in faith. On the basis of what I have heard, read and experienced, I believe, I will commit my life to this person Jesus and to his Church. I am not going to pursue the enquiry as undecided, I will go on from here on this decision as my foundation.

 

[Vicomte13]

Also going to add that I did not need Lourdes to make me believe the Church teachings on Saint Mary, which at least the prior post could strongly seen as required for a faith in those teachings about Saint Mary.

I required proof to believe that God had a mind and was not simply Natural Law.

And then I sorted out my religion based upon concrete proof.

So, we came at religion from very different starting points and via very different pathways.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

So, to be clear, you ascribe the healings at Lourdes, tens of thousands of them, all to the power of Satan. Satan can heal the blind and paralytic, and terminal cancer patient, in an instant, without relapse.

And you believe this because of the Bible.

Really?

You have doubts that you aired about the universal use of miracles to prove divinity. Good that you do because scripture warns of false prophets performing such things. Now read your post 172. You have convinced yourself that only God can perform miracles. You do this to fit your argument and satisfy the "hermetically sealed logic loop".

I responded to your post and proposed a counter argument. Your response is to quote the summary of my argument and ignore the points of my argument. You then use the "wealth" of miracles, tens of thousands, to counter an argument based on scripture and even your own questions.

No matter how many "miracles" there might be, if it teaches something that disagrees with scripture, it is false.

Since you ignore my other scripture, I will give more.

Matthew 17:4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”​

In my argument, I quoted scripture that teaches to test false prophets against scripture for truth. There is no example in scripture of such self-glorification as what your Lady of Lourdes story tells. An apparition tells a young girl she is Mary and to build a chapel there. This has resulted in a shrine that millions visit in pilgrimage to, in honor of Mary.

If Jesus did not sanction shrines for himself, Moses or Elijah, then that rules out shrines for anybody.

 

[Vicomte13]

No matter how many "miracles" there might be, if it teaches something that disagrees with scripture, it is false.

This is the irreducible point of disagreement.

 

[Philip_B]

This is the irreducible point of disagreement.

Anselm argued that faith and science followed faithfully would arrive at the same conclusion.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

This is the irreducible point of disagreement.

That is a cop-out to ignore my argument that Christ came first to establish the truth. Everything that comes after Christ must agree with what he said. This means that any additional revelations may add to what he taught, but not contradict it.

For one that seems to analyze the facts and believe because of the proof, what would you have done 200 years ago before this truth had been revealed? Is not what was presented 1900 years ago sufficient for salvation? If Mary was an important piece of NT church life, don't you think it would have been established 1900 years ago? Why delay this important piece till recent?

Further, the Pentecostal churches claim thousands of miracles. Does that validate all their doctrines? The apostle John was the last prophet. With his death, the words of scripture were closed. This scripture tells us to look in God's word for truth, not in miracles and those that perform them.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

This is the irreducible point of disagreement.

And it is wrong to think that what Jesus taught disagreed with the previous OT teachings.