Mary - Christian Prototype

[Root of Jesse]

Not question, maybe, but at least for us there tends to be a REASON for every tiny detail, and if we ask, sometimes a wonderfully deep lesson comes out of it, and then we are reminded every time we see it.

Is this a foreign concept in Catholicism? I'm seriously not baiting you or trying to insult - I hope you know I have great respect for you. But it never occurred to me to ask - is that mindset different in Catholicism?

You know, I think I mis spoke. We question things all the time. Joshua questioned God. So I don't mean we shouldn't question. In this case, I don't know that anyone knows the answer! I think we can do things liturgically if we understand why we're doing them. For example, we teach our Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion that they may consume the rest of the cup, and purify it, then wash it. But we explain why. First, what's in the cup is Precious Blood, and cannot be wasted, then whatever is still in the cup, microscopically, must be consumed as well, so we pour some water in the chalice, roll it around the cup to get any Precious Blood into it, then consume it again. Then, and only then, can we wash the cup. I don't know how many times one of the EMHC's has come to me and said "can you drink the wine"? I want to pound my head...but we try to train 'em up.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

For Mary to hear the massive volumes of prayers going up all at the same time she would have to be omniscient. That is an attribute only God has.

In being saved by God, we are glorified and deified, and this process of Theosis, or deification, one can assume based on the piety of the Church and the continual practice thereof confers upon the saints the ability to hear our prayers and to intercede for us.

The apparition I maintain are demonic manifestations and in no way a slam on Mary as i believe she has nothing to do with them. You see what was Satan's fall? Isiah 14
How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer,[fn] son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’

So Mary appears and asks for a temple for her own honor and then promises to give her mercy and deliverance. This is not right. John the baptist who Jesus said was the greatest of all pointed to Jesus exclusively. The whole tone is deception and as the law of the prophets said in Duet 13 f there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him.

Those who follow Guadalupe, Fatima, Medjugorje have full devotion to Mary and they think it counts as being devoted to Jesus via association. If Jesus is God and all power and authority are given to Him we need not a mother figure to go in between for us. The visions of these apparitions contradict the scriptures regarding prophetic destiny of the end times. A true word would not contradict the prophets who Peter said spoke by the Holy Spirit. The hardest lies to detect are ones that are wrapped in a lot of true statements. These apparitions do call for people to stop sinning and to confess and repent but they also point to Mary as the mediator in many instances. Here is an example of Mary asking people to give their lives to her. This is like Satan wanting to be like the most high. We are to give are lives to Jesus and not through Mary do we give our lives to him. I hope some can see this is subtle deceit.

Regarding Medjugorje, we must remember that that apparition is not officially sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church. Many people, myself included, and also most Catholic bishops, with a few possible exceptions, such as the Archbishop of Vienna, consider the sayings attributed to St. Mary by the alleged "seers" of Medjugorje to be of a disturbing nature. I personally consider it to be a combination of a possible demonic impersonation of St. Mary with low religious fraud, for example, the apparent ability of the "seers" to receive revelations from the Theotokos at will, something they appear to be willing to leverage for financial gain. None of the seers became monks, nuns or priests, which is what has happened in the case of apparitions officially sanctioned by the RCC.

Now, my church does not officially recognize any of these apparitions as being genuine. That said, I personally am inclined to believe in the authenticty of the Guadalupe apparition, on the basis of "by their fruits ye shall know them," as it led to the end of the terrible Aztec religion, which is the most violent and horrible pagan religion to ever exist, as far as I know (I have seen estimates for the total number of victims of Aztec human sacrifice as high as forty million, when one factors in the Flower Wars, by which Tenochitlan mercilessly exterminated the potential warriors of its adversaries in an obligatory human sacrifice ritual a bit evocative of The Hunger Games ).

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It might be the case in some liturgical rites, however, there is second century iconography in the Roman catacombs depicting a woman praying in that manner.

Liturgical abuse does sometimes bother me, but usually more serious ones like changing the order or having some promotion or business announcement in the middle of it.

In my local parish I try to go to Masses that do not include someone facing me and grinning ear to ear banging a tambourine over their head as I too find that distracting most of the time. I can and do appreciate the exuberance and have always wished more Catholics would smile and sing during Mass rather than look like they were at a funeral of someone they did not particularly know. Part of the reason I left Protesting Churches was I recognized in me a desire to feel good from participating in the weekly excitement some services could generate. That high became more important than the reason for worship. I was seeking that weekly high to carry me through the week as more important to me than my seeking a better relationship with God. It was fun and enjoyable, nothing wrong in itself but it became more to me than expressing a worship of God. And that was just a wakeup call for me.

Please do not by any stretch take it as something I want to express as Protestants doing it all wrong. It was where I was. That wake up call made me look at myself, and was only something in hindsight that I can say started my journey toward Rome as there were much larger and real hurdles to that path. The joy and expression of it in singing is still something I try to do and wish more Catholics would, something I still miss.

And I rather agree some behavior goes against proper form the canon law, but I also note those sections of the law are not given as infallible and have changed over time. We are talking about accepted practices, not teaching truths. I also find people talking and children's activities distracting, much more so now that my hearing is an issue, but I still recognize a need for a blessing/benefit for them as well (and so us) in their presence. We have one young lady who practically screams belting out some songs she enjoys and it makes everyone around her smile.

If it appeals to one's faith, then go to a Mass where it is offered. If all the Masses offered have distractions to one's faith, then either go to another Parish or sit somewhere (down front or even in an adjacent vestibule or room) where it should distract less. Definitely speak to your local Priest about one's concerns. My two cents.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

And I rather agree some behavior goes against proper form the canon law, but I also note those sections of the law are not given as infallible and have changed over time. We are talking about accepted practices, not teaching truths.

From an Orthodox perspective, we do not really draw a distinction between dogma and liturgical praxis. They are viewed as synonymous. The liturgy itself is the supreme dogmatic expression within Holy Orthodoxy. The word "Orthodoxy," which the RCC also likes to use in reference to itself, and quite rightly, too, literally means "correct glorification."

Thus from an EO or OO perspective we are dismayed by the liturgical abuses in the Roman church, as are many Roman Catholics. I don't think ecumenical reconciliation is possible until, at a minimum, the Novus Ordo Missae is celebrated universally in a manner consistent with its own rubrics, which are very permissive. The fact that people are going beyond those extremely permissive rubrics, and are getting away with it, on such a large scale, is very disheartening.

For my part, I believe the RCC should scrap the current Novus Ordo, go back to Sacrosanctum Concilium, and from it, authorize the use of the Tridentine mass, but with the prayers said alternately in Latin and in the vernacular, which I think is what most of the bishops at Vatican II envisaged, vs. the extremely radical reform implemented by Cardinal Bugnini.

 

[paul becke]

If you had a proper understanding of God's Covenant and the covenant family He created, you would not say this:

From the book THE DANCE OF ISAIAH, from KINGS OF LUIGHNE PUBLISHING,available on Amazon (Quotes in black bold, my commentary in red and blue.)


"Imagine again, if you will, the world without the Fall Imagine that King Adam and Queen Eve are still on earth, still regnant over creation in the splendor of their fully formed imaging of God. As human beings they are creatures who are as beautiful and splendid as Christ was on the Mount of Transfiguration. The shekinah glory of God covers them as it did Moses when he descended from Mount Sinai. Their rule extends to not only this earth, but to planets which have been formed from divine fiat of the Godhead. There are children of men on these planets and they bear similar rule over the creation there.

Suppose, in this planet of splendor without the Fall, that you were to come to me today and say “I have taken time off from my duties and am going to go see Eve the ruler, to pay her my respects.”

Would I chide you and say, “How dare you call her the ruler! Adam alone is the ruler over this earth! She is but his helpmeet and a mere creation of God!”

{This represents the typical Evangelical response to Mary.}

Not likely, if you have understood the principle of unity I have set out in earlier paragraphs. They would be one flesh and one mind and as such, to call one by the title ruler is to acknowledge and honor the other one who makes up the whole. Separation of rulership came only after the Fall. And even then, Eve still retained a position higher than the children who would come from her womb. Thus the commandment says not “Honor thy father...” but instead “Honor thy father and thy mother.” Even in a subordinate position to Adam, Eve still bears in his authority a place of dignity and honor. In each normal human family (and God knows there are some weird and abnormal ones out there) the father treats disrespect of the mother as disrespect of himself and his own authority. In a properly functional family, the mother is carrying out the wishes of the father, and therefore, disrespect to her is disrespect to the one who has given her the authority and in whose name she ultimately speaks. Swift and serious punishment is the consequence.

What does covenant have to do with what is written above?

EVERYTHING!

Note that Jesus is the Last Adam (1 Corin. 15:45). This is a significant title which is given to Him. It means that not only does He restore mankind to its original unity with God as was found in the Garden, but that He is now the covenant Head over the covenant family. The title "Last Adam" means that He has taken the place of Adam, restored mankind, and the family of God is repaired, the breech of sin done away with. By His work on the Cross, all the destruction of the Fall in the Garden is repaired.

But wait!!! What of Eve? If Eve is not restored as was Adam, then something has not been repaired in the Garden Family, has it? And what woman shall we find in all of history who would be a suitable replacement? It would only be Mary.

The Early Fathers say of the Blessed Virgin that she, by her obedience, undid the knot of Eve’s disobedience. Let us take a little closer look at the New Eve and see if we can draw type/antitype parallels which will put her in proper perspective rather than in the contempt and disrespect that the Fundamentalists and others have for her.

From Eve would have come all living, for her name means “mother of all living.” She was created in innocency without sin. The children who came from her would have therefore been also born without taint of sin and in innocency. In keeping with the type therefore, it would be necessary for her to be created without sin. Since she was by her organic connection to father Adam, a sinner, it was necessary that God intervene and apply the work of Christ to her at the moment of conception so that, cleansed of all sin, she might be as Eve was, innocent and without sin from the moment of her conception. Thus the doctrine and teaching of the Immaculate Conception fulfills the antitype requirements necessary for the redemption of the human race.

Eve was created as Adam’s help. She was a helpmeet fit for him. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that Adam couldn’t have administered the Garden by himself, but at the same time, God found it necessary that he have a helpmeet. Therefore, we must assume that God saw something lacking which needed fulfillment in an appropriate helper, or God would have left all alone and let Adam run all things as a solitary king.

In the same way then, keeping with the type/antitype relationship, we must see the Blessed Virgin as the helpmeet of Jesus (again, not of God, for He needs no help.) Therefore, Jesus, who is the Christ, could not have even been born except that He had a mother after the flesh to bear Him. He had to come in the flesh to redeem us in the flesh. And He could not have redeemed the world except that He had received from His mother flesh which was sinless. If the Blessed Virgin had the slightest taint of sin about her, then the Savior would have been a blemished lamb not fit for the sacrifice for sins. Without her consent to all that God proposed to her, the redemption would have been impossible.

As the first Eve was in complete harmony with the will of her co-regent before the Fall, we see the last Eve in complete harmony with the will of God. She is, in turn, in complete harmony with the will of Her divine Son, with Whom she rules and reigns in glory. Adam and Eve, fully human, are restored and God sends out the good news that the kingdom is redeemed from sin and all who will may come and enter into the family. The New Eve rules in total harmony with the Last Adam. There is no idea that we can request of the Blessed Virgin and that somehow she will act contrary to the will of God or bestow upon us answers that are not in His will. She intercedes for us as a mother of her children, in our best interests, but always in line with the will of the family head. As Adam’s wife, Eve was destined to bear rule as the queen over all creation. Therefore, as the Last Adam is the King over God’s creation, it is fitting and proper to call her the Queen of Heaven.

Through the unity of their wills, expressed in a way we are not sure of, life would be brought forth to the Garden. It seems that before the Fall, this would have possibly precluded sexual intimacy as we know and understand it after the Fall. The birth of Christ in the East is spoken of as a mystery in which the Blessed Theotokos brought Him forth in a way unknown to man. He was not born in the fashion of all mankind after the Fall, but brought forth in mysterious manner, perhaps such as Eve would have borne offspring had she not sinned.


Jesus said that we are to honor our fathers and mothers. Father and mother are familial positions of authority over their children. The commandment is also taken to mean that we must give honor to all authority above us. Mary has taken Eve's place. The old family of God under the Old Covenant is gone, as are Adam and Eve as being the parents - mother and father - over it. The New Covenant family is headed up by Jesus and Mary - King and Queen - ruling over the Creation of God as Adam and Eve could have, but lost that great privilege by their Fall from grace.

Wow! Great post, Light of the East.

 

[chevyontheriver]

For my part, I believe the RCC should scrap the current Novus Ordo, go back to Sacrosanctum Concilium, and from it, authorize the use of the Tridentine mass, but with the prayers said alternately in Latin and in the vernacular, which I think is what most of the bishops at Vatican II envisaged, vs. the extremely radical reform implemented by Cardinal Bugnini.

Lots of us agree. Not that we require Latin per se (heh, Latin right there) but that the old rite held together and was far more meaningful than the pop rite of today. Yes, the novus ordo can be well done following the actual rubrics, yes it is legitimate, yes a few years ago it was improved in a tweak, but no it is not an unqualified success.

You've had quire a few really good posts here on this thread. Thanks.

 

[Vicomte13]

I point out that there are lying signs and wonders and we need be aware. I have read a book called the beautiful side of evil by a woman who was a new age psychic healer. She was possessed voluntarily as she sought a spirit guide. She wanted Jesus as her guide and was deceived for a long while. She saw people healed of cancer by these methods of psychic surgery where they could reach into the body and pull out the tumor. She was questioned about how she knew her guide was Jesus and all and eventually recognized her being deceived and she has been warning about this stuff ever since. The testimony is what need be examined along with the sign.

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He[fn] who now restrains will do so until He[fn] is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Can Satan cast out Satan?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Can Satan cast out Satan?

I don't think so.

 

[Vicomte13]

I don't think so.

Precisely so. That's what Jesus said. Note well, Jesus said that in the context of people attacking him for the healing miracles he performed. They said that he was performing major healing miracles by the power of Satan.

He replied to that accusation with that very question: "Can Satan cast out Satan?"
Then answered, as you did, in the negative. And then, right then, right there, he spoke of the unforgiveable sin: ascribing the works of God, of the Holy Spirit to Satan. The works to which he was specifically referring at that moment, that he was defending, was his works of major healing.

And THAT is the problem with Lourdes. God has restored sight to the blind at Lourdes, paralytics have stood up and walked out of the waters. These are medical facts, and they present a terrible problem for those who would attack the miracles because they occur specifically at a place where Mary appeared in the 1800s, and where a shrine was built dedicated to her - Our Lady of Lourdes.

God is performing major miracles there, at a Marian site, before the eyes of the world - the very sort of miracles that Jesus performed, of that magnitude. And you have people up this very thread attacking those very miracles as Satanic deceptions, just EXACTLY like the Pharisees and scribes attacked Jesus for performing the same miracles.

Jesus rounded on them and told them that Satan cannot cast out Satan, and to ascribe such things, done by the power of the Holy Spirit, to the power of Satan was an unforgiveable sin.

I understand very well why some people have a terrible, terrible time with major divine miracles happening at a Marian shrine - Mary's role as emissary is not in the Bible. It is easy, then, to simply ascribe all miracles that happen in a place devoted to Mary as satanic, because one refuses to accept that there can be any revelation outside of the Bible.

The PROBLEM with that approach is that it is literally committing the unpardonable sins: it is taking the SAME miracles that Jesus performed, and that Jesus said Satan CAN'T perform, and ascribing them to Satan, thereby blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and doing so for the same reason that the Pharisees did the same way: God came in a way that was NOT EXPECTED, and NOT CLEARLY DESCRIBED in the Scriptures before. The Pharisees were reading the Scriptures and knew them, and NOWHERE did those Scriptures tell them that God would have a biological son, who would be poor and perform major miracles. Their whole tradition was challenged by Jesus, SO they ascribed his healing miracles to Satan.

Now page up this thread and look at the essay written to me which ascribed the major healing miracles at the Marian shrine at Lourdes to Satan.

And realize that my question: "Can Satan cast out Satan?" is Jesus' own question, to the identical challenge in the identical specific circumstance: major healing miracles that Satan cannot perform, and note well that the next thing that Jesus said was that to ascribe those things to Satan was to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and would not be forgiven.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE LOURDES HEALINGS.

They are REAL and scientifically documented for over a century.
There are a lot of them. Hosptials all combined do not have the spontaneous reversal of blindness, things like that, with the regularity and in the numbers that Lourdes does. Real major miracles, in probability curve breaking numbers.
They are of a nature that medicine can't do them, but that Jesus did.
And Jesus said that Satan can't do those things.

So, who did them? God.
Where? Not everywhere. There's no OTHER Lourdes. There's only Lourdes.

And Lourdes is a shrine that was specifically built at a site of a Marian visitation.

Lourdes is a new divine revelation of the particular importance of Mary. It is post-Biblical, but the nature of the miracles are divine. To call them Satanic is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit who did them.

Faced with Lourdes, Sola Scriptura will not help you. You have to deal with it. To deny the miracles is to lie.
To ascribe them to Satan is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, because Satan cannot cast out Satan, and healing the blind is a Jesus-level miracle.

That's the problem with Lourdes. It is a visible statement by God of the approval of Mary as his emissary, and a beacon to everybody that there is, in fact, major divine revelation going on TODAY, which means that the Bible is not the complete story. There is MORE, and it's still going on - and MARY, specifically Mary - is the emissary that God has used to deliver these messages. The MesoAmericans converted en masse because Mary visited.

Are we to worship Mary? No. BUT we are not to DENY the reality of Mary's divine mission either.
In short, Lourdes and Guadelupe are the concrete refutation of Sola Scriptura: because they're real, they're really divine, they're miraculous, and there's not a whisper about them in the Bible.

But there is the warning from Jesus not to ascribe major healing miracles to Satan - that is the unpardonable sin.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Can Satan cast out Satan?

There are Patristic accounts of devils pretending to depart an afflicted person, in some cases in order to contribute to the spiritual delusion of the faithful, e.g. to convince a monastic of his holiness by showing him he has the power to cast out demons, when in fact the monastic is deluded, and in a state of prelest.

One very helpful book on this subject is the Arena of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov.

 

[paul becke]

Precisely so. That's what Jesus said. Note well, Jesus said that in the context of people attacking him for the healing miracles he performed. They said that he was performing major healing miracles by the power of Satan.

He replied to that accusation with that very question: "Can Satan cast out Satan?"
Then answered, as you did, in the negative. And then, right then, right there, he spoke of the unforgiveable sin: ascribing the works of God, of the Holy Spirit to Satan. The works to which he was specifically referring at that moment, that he was defending, was his works of major healing.

And THAT is the problem with Lourdes. God has restored sight to the blind at Lourdes, paralytics have stood up and walked out of the waters. These are medical facts, and they present a terrible problem for those who would attack the miracles because they occur specifically at a place where Mary appeared in the 1800s, and where a shrine was built dedicated to her - Our Lady of Lourdes.

God is performing major miracles there, at a Marian site, before the eyes of the world - the very sort of miracles that Jesus performed, of that magnitude. And you have people up this very thread attacking those very miracles as Satanic deceptions, just EXACTLY like the Pharisees and scribes attacked Jesus for performing the same miracles.

Jesus rounded on them and told them that Satan cannot cast out Satan, and to ascribe such things, done by the power of the Holy Spirit, to the power of Satan was an unforgiveable sin.

I understand very well why some people have a terrible, terrible time with major divine miracles happening at a Marian shrine - Mary's role as emissary is not in the Bible. It is easy, then, to simply ascribe all miracles that happen in a place devoted to Mary as satanic, because one refuses to accept that there can be any revelation outside of the Bible.

The PROBLEM with that approach is that it is literally committing the unpardonable sins: it is taking the SAME miracles that Jesus performed, and that Jesus said Satan CAN'T perform, and ascribing them to Satan, thereby blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and doing so for the same reason that the Pharisees did the same way: God came in a way that was NOT EXPECTED, and NOT CLEARLY DESCRIBED in the Scriptures before. The Pharisees were reading the Scriptures and knew them, and NOWHERE did those Scriptures tell them that God would have a biological son, who would be poor and perform major miracles. Their whole tradition was challenged by Jesus, SO they ascribed his healing miracles to Satan.

Now page up this thread and look at the essay written to me which ascribed the major healing miracles at the Marian shrine at Lourdes to Satan.

And realize that my question: "Can Satan cast out Satan?" is Jesus' own question, to the identical challenge in the identical specific circumstance: major healing miracles that Satan cannot perform, and note well that the next thing that Jesus said was that to ascribe those things to Satan was to blaspheme the Holy Spirit and would not be forgiven.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE LOURDES HEALINGS.

They are REAL and scientifically documented for over a century.
There are a lot of them. Hosptials all combined do not have the spontaneous reversal of blindness, things like that, with the regularity and in the numbers that Lourdes does. Real major miracles, in probability curve breaking numbers.
They are of a nature that medicine can't do them, but that Jesus did.
And Jesus said that Satan can't do those things.

So, who did them? God.
Where? Not everywhere. There's no OTHER Lourdes. There's only Lourdes.

And Lourdes is a shrine that was specifically built at a site of a Marian visitation.

Lourdes is a new divine revelation of the particular importance of Mary. It is post-Biblical, but the nature of the miracles are divine. To call them Satanic is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit who did them.

Faced with Lourdes, Sola Scriptura will not help you. You have to deal with it. To deny the miracles is to lie.
To ascribe them to Satan is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, because Satan cannot cast out Satan, and healing the blind is a Jesus-level miracle.

That's the problem with Lourdes. It is a visible statement by God of the approval of Mary as his emissary, and a beacon to everybody that there is, in fact, major divine revelation going on TODAY, which means that the Bible is not the complete story. There is MORE, and it's still going on - and MARY, specifically Mary - is the emissary that God has used to deliver these messages. The MesoAmericans converted en masse because Mary visited.

Are we to worship Mary? No. BUT we are not to DENY the reality of Mary's divine mission either.
In short, Lourdes and Guadelupe are the concrete refutation of Sola Scriptura: because they're real, they're really divine, they're miraculous, and there's not a whisper about them in the Bible.

But there is the warning from Jesus not to ascribe major healing miracles to Satan - that is the unpardonable sin.

A valuable post, Vicomte13

 

[Vicomte13]

There are Patristic accounts of devils pretending to depart an afflicted person, in some cases in order to contribute to the spiritual delusion of the faithful, e.g. to convince a monastic of his holiness by showing him he has the power to cast out demons, when in fact the monastic is deluded, and in a state of prelest.

One very helpful book on this subject is the Arena of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov.

So, Jesus' question, then, can give no real comfort. He COULD have been casting out demons by the power of Satan, just as the Pharisees claimed. If Satan can heal the blind, then Jesus' urging people, if they didn't believe on his words, then believe because of the signs - the healing acts he did.

There are Christian traditions you cited there that seem to say not so! You CAN'T trust the very test that Jesus himself proposed as the means by which those who saw his miracles could know they were real. If Satan can heal the blind and the paralytic, then it was not possible to know, from the signs Jesus performed that he was not acting by the power of Satan.

This makes any test unreliable, because Satan could do anything that Jesus did... Like heel the blind. And therefore the healing of the blind at Lourdes, a shrine to Mary, COULD be a sign of Satanic power, just like the hardest-bitten Protestant might say. Thus, the miracle itself, of healing the blind, would be insufficient evidence of divine agency - the fact that Mary as emissary of divine power is not revealed I the Bible would be proof positive, as some Protestants assert, that all Marian apparitions are unbiblical and, therefore, Satanic.

It is a hermetically sealed logic loop. One that I must reject. I think that Jesus' question was intended to convey a real, hard litmus test, to say that Satan cannot cast out Satan by healing the blind or paralytic, so that when you see such healing a, if they are real, you are seeing divine power that you must not gainsay as Satanic.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

So, Jesus' question, then, can give no real comfort. He COULD have been casting out demons by the power of Satan, just as the Pharisees claimed. If Satan can heal the blind, then Jesus' urging people, if they didn't believe on his words, then believe because of the signs - the healing acts he did.

There are Christian traditions you cited there that seem to say not so! You CAN'T trust the very test that Jesus himself proposed as the means by which those who saw his miracles could know they were real. If Satan can heal the blind and the paralytic, then it was not possible to know, from the signs Jesus performed that he was not acting by the power of Satan.

This makes any test unreliable, because Satan could do anything that Jesus did... Like heel the blind. And therefore the healing of the blind at Lourdes, a shrine to Mary, COULD be a sign of Satanic power, just like the hardest-bitten Protestant might say. Thus, the miracle itself, of healing the blind, would be insufficient evidence of divine agency - the fact that Mary as emissary of divine power is not revealed I the Bible would be proof positive, as some Protestants assert, that all Marian apparitions are unbiblical and, therefore, Satanic.

It is a hermetically sealed logic loop. One that I must reject. I think that Jesus' question was intended to convey a real, hard litmus test, to say that Satan cannot cast out Satan by healing the blind or paralytic, so that when you see such healing a, if they are real, you are seeing divine power that you must not gainsay as Satanic.

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.

 

[Philip_B]

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.

These are most dangerous areas to play in. The moment we are dealing with spirits and demonic powers, I would advise no one move without bringing to full weight of Holy Church to bear on the matter, and seeking wise and learned spiritual council from someone who is senior in orders. I know that sounds a bit Bell Book and Candle, and maybe even it is, but half attacking demons unprepared and ill equipped has the makings of spiritual disaster.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

In a very real way she is the prototype for every Christian, as we are all called to respond in obedience and bring Christ into the world.

Scripture is quite clear. Christ is the prototype, not Mary, not Peter, not Paul, not any person.

How is it that this woman who means so much in the outworking of our salvation could be the cause of so much derision and division within the body of Christ - the Church?

Because God teaches us to only worship and pray to God.

 

[Philip_B]

Because God teaches us to only worship and pray to God.

I believe in this thread that I have not raised that subject.

Scripture is quite clear. Christ is the prototype, not Mary, not Peter, not Paul, not any person.

I believe you mistake my meaning. so be it.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

So, Jesus' question, then, can give no real comfort. He COULD have been casting out demons by the power of Satan, just as the Pharisees claimed. If Satan can heal the blind, then Jesus' urging people, if they didn't believe on his words, then believe because of the signs - the healing acts he did.

There are Christian traditions you cited there that seem to say not so! You CAN'T trust the very test that Jesus himself proposed as the means by which those who saw his miracles could know they were real. If Satan can heal the blind and the paralytic, then it was not possible to know, from the signs Jesus performed that he was not acting by the power of Satan.

This makes any test unreliable, because Satan could do anything that Jesus did... Like heel the blind. And therefore the healing of the blind at Lourdes, a shrine to Mary, COULD be a sign of Satanic power, just like the hardest-bitten Protestant might say. Thus, the miracle itself, of healing the blind, would be insufficient evidence of divine agency - the fact that Mary as emissary of divine power is not revealed I the Bible would be proof positive, as some Protestants assert, that all Marian apparitions are unbiblical and, therefore, Satanic.

It is a hermetically sealed logic loop. One that I must reject. I think that Jesus' question was intended to convey a real, hard litmus test, to say that Satan cannot cast out Satan by healing the blind or paralytic, so that when you see such healing a, if they are real, you are seeing divine power that you must not gainsay as Satanic.

Don't use logic to create doctrine, use scripture; but there is an escape from your "hermetically sealed logic loop".

The first is the greatest, like the first to the moon. The signs and miracles along with the truth of the word established the Christian Church. Jesus fulfilled prophecies. The prophecies that remain of false teachers doing miracles that deceive the "elect" now serve the opposite.

Matthew 24:23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.​

Since the truth has been established with God's recorded word, miracles are no longer required as an indication of truth. Understand that the purpose of miracles was not to convert anyone/obtain faith. Jesus said it was because they had faith that they received the miracle. The purpose of miracles was to establish that Jesus spoke the truth. Now that the truth has been established, there is no longer any need of miracles. We have a new way of establishing the truth.

1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
​

4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5 They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

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.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Can Satan cast out Satan?

Can a king sacrifice a pawn? Yes. But Jesus said the end will be near when this happens.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I believe in this thread that I have not raised that subject.


I believe you mistake my meaning. so be it.

Mark 3:27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”

28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

 

[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.

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.