Thoughts on Marian Apparitions and the Like

[Albion]

I personally don't believe in anything-goes but I am fine with Marian devotion.

Yes, but what I wonder is why there is an unwilligness to have the question raised, "Is this a good idea?" One poster here said that if makes her feel warmer towards Mary, ergo, it can't be wrong. It doesn't take a genius to see the weakness in that argument. So if I say that certain Marian devotions appear to be contrary to scripture, why doesn't it get defended on scriptural grounds?

And so are many Anglo-Catholics.

I guess I've missed why that means anything important.

I'm not talking about intentions. Intentions are usually good with liberals. They think they are being charitable in allowing certain immoral things to be considered "normal" to not alienate a segment of our population. Rather than preaching repentence, they preach acceptance of sins. So good intentions are things that Old Nick likes to play off of to ensnare us often times.

Excellent. Let's continue.

I don't feel that Marian devotion, something that was a part of the early Church, the Fathers, the Councils, the Orthodox and Catholic and Anglo-Catholic world as well as the private life of men like Martin Luther, I don't see what is wrong with it.

Now that's quite a lot rolled into one statement. To begin with, it is not correct in the least--not even debatable--to say gthat "Marian devotion (was) something that was part of the early Church," not the Marian devotions we have been discussing. The rosary was invented well into the Middle Ages; the famous apparitions are of fairly recent origin; the Assumption was not an early belief, and on and on. And by listing varioius churches and factions, are you saying that numbes establish correctness?

just what I see of history, theology, and tradition. Anything-goes really isn't at play here IMHO.

It is for some posters, I'd contend.

As for your posts, well no. But it sounds like "It feels OK and a lot of people do it, so how can it be wrong?" Yet I assume that if that argument were used to support being slain in the spirit or speaking in tongues, you wouldn't just say "that settles everything. Count me in"

 

[MKJ]

I think the main issue is that you haven't shown that they are against Scripture, nor is the practice of praying to saints. And obviously the Church for 1500 years didn't think so either - it isn't some medieval invention, or a controversial issue in the time it was practiced.

The people who are really against it are the ones who have heterodox beliefs about the afterlife.

 

[Albion]

I think the main issue is that you haven't shown that they are against Scripture, nor is the practice of praying to saints. And obviously the Church for 1500 years didn't think so either - it isn't some medieval invention, or a controversial issue in the time it was practiced.

The people who are really against it are the ones who have heterodox beliefs about the afterlife.

I can't decide if I'm supposed to be heterodox, more heterodox than someone else, if it's possible to be more or less heterodox. LOL No, I'm hopelessly orthodox, which means that I don't go in for unscriptural innovations.

Now, I challenge you first to substantiate your claims. I say that it is nonsense to try to pass off the idea that the lavish Marian devotions of our age are what the early Church did. I challenge the accuracy of that POV without any hesitation.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Your position seems to be sola scriptura, something that is never a solid argument IMO anyway. Are you saying that because the Holy Rosary didn't spring up until the Middle Ages (which is true, you are correct) then Marian devotion didn't exist prior? Are you implying that the Eastern Orthodox never had Marian devotion and confidence in her intercession because they didn't stick around with the Catholics post-1054 to get rosaries?

Have you ever read the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom? If so, would you care to count how many zillions of times the liturgy references the intercession or devotion to the "Most pure, my Holy Theotokos?" Try Googling it. Is St. John Chrysostom of the Middle Ages? He lived as a contemporary of Augustine of Hippo? Or St. Basil the Great's Orthodox Divine Liturgy. You'll fine a reference or two praising Mary and invoking her aid.

I'm glad you said "famous" apparitions appeared recently. That leaves the door open to the fact that Mary has appeared to the Church East and West long before "recent" times. You'd be correct on that!

Speaking in tongues and Marian devotion are just plain apples and oranges. I think you're arguing an unwinable position, Albion. There are few Christians in here, liberal or conservative, who will make the claim that Marian devotion is some late innovation and is somehow wrong, improper, or as you characterize it, a bandwagon pseudo-worship for feel-good reasons. If you seek a sola scriptura stance, you won't find it Marian devotion. It wasn't referenced because Mary was still alive! She was living with St. John and much of holy tradition says she ended up in Ephesus. I find it pretty hard to imagine the Christians in that community not asking for her to pray for them! I know I would!

Seeing as how the Anglican Church came long after the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and Anglicanism is a spawn of sorts from Catholicism, we might at least for one second consider a tad bit of respect and realization that Mary was a tremendous part of both of these holy communions that preceeded Anglicanism. I'm not just going to grab a Bible and ignore the 1,500 years that existed in Christendom prior to the Reformation and its obsession with bible-alone self-translation.

Yes, but what I wonder is why there is an unwilligness to have the question raised, "Is this a good idea?" One poster here said that if makes her feel warmer towards Mary, ergo, it can't be wrong. It doesn't take a genius to see the weakness in that argument. So if I say that certain Marian devotions appear to be contrary to scripture, why doesn't it get defended on scriptural grounds?



I guess I've missed why that means anything important.



Excellent. Let's continue.



Now that's quite a lot rolled into one statement. To begin with, it is not correct in the least--not even debatable--to say gthat "Marian devotion (was) something that was part of the early Church," not the Marian devotions we have been discussing. The rosary was invented well into the Middle Ages; the famous apparitions are of fairly recent origin; the Assumption was not an early belief, and on and on. And by listing varioius churches and factions, are you saying that numbes establish correctness?



It is for some posters, I'd contend.

As for your posts, well no. But it sounds like "It feels OK and a lot of people do it, so how can it be wrong?" Yet I assume that if that argument were used to support being slain in the spirit or speaking in tongues, you wouldn't just say "that settles everything. Count me in"

 

[MKJ]

I can't decide if I'm supposed to be heterodox, more heterodox than someone else, if it's possible to be more or less heterodox. LOL No, I'm hopelessly orthodox, which means that I don't go in for unscriptural innovations.

Now, I challenge you first to substantiate your claims. I say that it is nonsense to try to pass off the idea that the lavish Marian devotions of our age are what the early Church did. I challenge the accuracy of that POV without any hesitation.

As far back as we have records, there are devotions to the saints and Mary. They seem really to have come into use in, if I recall correctly, the third century. I believe there is fairly good evidence of this, although the evidence either way about devotions in the very early Church are just not available.

I don't think that those things were placed in Scripture, or were meant to be recorded there - I don't expect to find direction on liturgy or structure of the Church or devotions in Scripture. I think the idea that everything not found in Scripture is innovative is an innovation, one that dates to substantially later than praying to Mary.

I wasn't suggesting that you personally were orthodox or heterodox. I was pointing out that strong aversion to Marian devotion or invocation of saints is associated with heterodox views, just as some like to claim that Marian devotion is associated with heterodox practices.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Meghan was not implying you're a heretic, Albion. She was merely saying that the anti-Marian approaches and "either-or" with Christ "or" Mary thinking, the extreme iconoclasm against Mary is usually coming from heretics and heterodox folks making wild and bizarre claims that run counter to holy Tradition.

I'm getting the feeling you're a sola scriptura more Calvinist-oriented Anglican. Am I right?

I can't decide if I'm supposed to be heterodox, more heterodox than someone else, if it's possible to be more or less heterodox. LOL No, I'm hopelessly orthodox, which means that I don't go in for unscriptural innovations.

Now, I challenge you first to substantiate your claims. I say that it is nonsense to try to pass off the idea that the lavish Marian devotions of our age are what the early Church did. I challenge the accuracy of that POV without any hesitation.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Rosary: some people discuss details. Let's see. All religions have got prayers similar to Rosary. As Car Jung, I would say that it is collective unconscious. Do not try to explain the Rosary. IT a human need. But this time to someone that exists and that She is the Mother of God.

Argument from Early Church: some people take as reverence the Early church. If it was done then, it is OK. If not, it is not OK. Sorry, the Church did not freeze in time. With the same tools, successive saints and doctors discovered in the message of Christ meanings that he Early church did not see. The Holy Spirit is still working in the Church and Jesus is with us. Some people think that the Holy spirit and Jesus went into hibernation from the Early Christians on so They would not intervene in the Church. Mistake.

 

[Albion]

Your position seems to be sola scriptura, something that is never a solid argument IMO anyway.

I guess we are simply in disagreement then. For me, it's a little more complicated than that. I find the anti-SS arguments to be so unconvincing that I almost always tend to defend SS against them, quite apart from whether or not I count myself as a SS Christian. But I do believe in SS because I can't imagine how ANY source or alleged source of inspiration and guidance, whether it be direct communication with the divine, custom and folklore, or the supposed inspiration of church leaders (there are Christians who denouce Sola Scriptura in favor of one or more of them), could beat the Word of God.

To put it slightly differently, we all say that the Word of God is true. It has proven itself and just about every church affirms the inspired nature of Holy Writ. So what is better? What can be equal to that which is of God and given for our instruction?

To place something else on such a pedestal necessarily is to demote the very Word of God. How any Christian can in good conscience support that is amazing to me.

Are you saying that because the Holy Rosary didn't spring up until the Middle Ages (which is true, you are correct) then Marian devotion didn't exist prior?

No, I am saying two things. One, the rosary has no particular importance as a devotional (although you'd never know that from reading the posts we see here), on the Traditionalist's own scale of things. It is not ancient. It has been redesigned many times. The prayers have been changed frequently. The story of its supposed origins is not historical, and so on. Second, the whole range of Marian devotions is being defended because the early church did petition the saints, but the one isn't at all the same as the other. It's mainly the embellishments, the exaggerations, and the ongoing gilding of the lily that I caution people about. For a comparison, if the Tridentine Mass is criticised for any reason, is it convincing to say hat the early church broke bread and distributed it? NO.

Are you implying that the Eastern Orthodox never had Marian devotion and confidence in her intercession because they didn't stick around with the Catholics post-1054 to get rosaries?

No.

u ever read the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?

Sure.

would you care to count how many zillions of times the liturgy references the intercession or devotion to the "Most pure, my Holy Theotokos?"

Once again my criticisms are specific. You can't just find something more or less in the same general area and say, "well, they are the same."

Is St. John Chrysostom of the Middle Ages? He lived as a contemporary of Augustine of Hippo?

What's your point? They are saints and that's it. They didn't live during the early days of the Church.

I'm glad you said "famous" apparitions appeared recently. That leaves the door open to the fact that Mary has appeared to the Church East and West long before "recent" times.

When did Lourdes, Guadalupe, Knock, Fatima, Medjugordia (sp?) occur?

Speaking in tongues and Marian devotion are just plain apples and oranges. I think you're arguing an unwinable position, Albion.

Oh well, I find that very few people on these forums are willing to consider anything that goes against their preconveived positions. The most that I can do is bring the information to their attention and hope that they think on it when they don't have to humiliate themselves online by agreeing with me.

There are few Christians in here, liberal or conservative, who will make the claim that Marian devotion is some late innovation and is somehow wrong, improper, or as you characterize it, a bandwagon pseudo-worship for feel-good reasons. If

I haven't criticised it as a bandwagon pseudo-worship, although I applaud the creator of that term. Very colorful.

ek a sola scriptura stance, you won't find it Marian devotion. It wasn't referenced because Mary was still alive!

With respect, that doesn't make any sense. The same people will easily say that the Papal office, transubstantiation, purgatory, and many other such doctrines are supported by scripture even though there is no mention of any of them in the Bible. What they mean, of course, is that which is there either precludes or gives support to the belief if not explicitly.

Praying to the dead could very well be found in scripture, if it were a Biblical teaching, regardless of the specifics of mary's life.

 

[Albion]

Rosary: some people discuss details. Let's see. All religions have got prayers similar to Rosary.

The key word there is similar. Yes, they have beads for counting and that's about it. If that were what the Dominican Rosary were, you wouldn't hear any protest from me. I have spelled out my points. Please read them.

Argument from Early Church: some people take as reverence the Early church. If it was done then, it is OK. If not, it is not OK.

I don't believe any of them have yet participated in this debate, so what is the point there?

Sorry, the Church did not freeze in time. With the same tools, successive saints and doctors discovered in the message of Christ meanings that he Early church did not see. The Holy Spirit is still working in the Church and Jesus is with us. Some people think that the Holy spirit and Jesus went into hibernation from the Early Christians on so They would not intervene in the Church.

a statement that can be used to defend just about any doctrine.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

We do indeed differ...a great deal I'm afraid. But I think your charicature of Anglo-Catholics is not a good one. You seem to think that Marian devotion is a concoction of Medievel conjurors who just kept cooking up more credit than is due the Mother of God. Your tone also implies that all the apparitions are boloney and people are gullible who buy into them.

Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture, interestingly enough. What came first, the Church or the Bible? What the Church do in the first few centuries when there was no one settled Bible? Did all the churches possess all of Paul's letters or all four gospels, etc.? Is the Bible an owner's manual that answers all questions? Is it a reference manual to be used to diagnose every theological quandry? If this is the case, we should all just become Baptists right now and quite playing with Anglicanism for sure.

When you speak of the rosary with intense cynicism, I fail to see what the point is? So the Rosary went through several incarnations and modifications. So did the Book of Common Prayer but are we going to jettison it off as a joke? The Rosary is not dropped from the sky as a set-in-stone for all time parallel to the Eucharist. It is a prayer devotion. In Cathoicism it isn't required or forced on anyone. It is elective and a devotion. The Orthodox had the chotki early on and the Catholic Church developed the Rosary in the Middle Ages to emphasize the humanity, divinity, suffering, and glory as well as deep relationship to His Mother in one lovely prayer devotion.

The disagreements we've been having in this thread are indicative that Anglicanism is, in some ways two religions in one---a sola scriptura faith based more on Calvin and an anglo-catholic one that values the Fathers and Scripture.

I guess we are simply in disagreement then. For me, it's a little more complicated than that. I find the anti-SS arguments to be so unconvincing that I almost always tend to defend SS against them, quite apart from whether or not I count myself as a SS Christian. But I do believe in SS because I can't imagine how ANY source or alleged source of inspiration and guidance, whether it be direct communication with the divine, custom and folklore, or the supposed inspiration of church leaders (there are Christians who denouce Sola Scriptura in favor of one or more of them), could beat the Word of God.

To put it slightly differently, we all say that the Word of God is true. It has proven itself and just about every church affirms the inspired nature of Holy Writ. So what is better? What can be equal to that which is of God and given for our instruction?

To place something else on such a pedestal necessarily is to demote the very Word of God. How any Christian can in good conscience support that is amazing to me.



No, I am saying two things. One, the rosary has no particular importance as a devotional (although you'd never know that from reading the posts we see here), on the Traditionalist's own scale of things. It is not ancient. It has been redesigned many times. The prayers have been changed frequently. The story of its supposed origins is not historical, and so on. Second, the whole range of Marian devotions is being defended because the early church did petition the saints, but the one isn't at all the same as the other. It's mainly the embellishments, the exaggerations, and the ongoing gilding of the lily that I caution people about. For a comparison, if the Tridentine Mass is criticised for any reason, is it convincing to say hat the early church broke bread and distributed it? NO.



No.


Sure.


Once again my criticisms are specific. You can't just find something more or less in the same general area and say, "well, they are the same."



What's your point? They are saints and that's it. They didn't live during the early days of the Church.



When did Lourdes, Guadalupe, Knock, Fatima, Medjugordia (sp?) occur?



Oh well, I find that very few people on these forums are willing to consider anything that goes against their preconveived positions. The most that I can do is bring the information to their attention and hope that they think on it when they don't have to humiliate themselves online by agreeing with me.



I haven't criticised it as a bandwagon pseudo-worship, although I applaud the creator of that term. Very colorful.



With respect, that doesn't make any sense. The same people will easily say that the Papal office, transubstantiation, purgatory, and many other such doctrines are supported by scripture even though there is no mention of any of them in the Bible. What they mean, of course, is that which is there either precludes or gives support to the belief if not explicitly.

Praying to the dead could very well be found in scripture, if it were a Biblical teaching, regardless of the specifics of mary's life.

 

[Albion]

We do indeed differ...a great deal I'm afraid. But I think your charicature of Anglo-Catholics is not a good one. You seem to think that Marian devotion is a concoction of Medievel conjurors who just kept cooking up more credit than is due the Mother of God. Your tone also implies that all the apparitions are boloney and people are gullible who buy into them.

I'm having a little trouble with my computer at present, so I think I'd better keep it short and hope to get it done. Don't interpret that as a critical "tone."

None of the points made above are true.

Sola Scriptura is not in Scripture, interestingly enough.

Not the phrase, no. But then neither is the Trinity in Scripture. The concept is clearly there and as I was saying on some thread, I posted about twenty different Bible verses the last time someone said that. I've come to believe that someone told someone else that SS is not in Scripture and by now anyone who disagrees with it just repeats that comment without having looked into it personally.

What came first, the Church or the Bible?

Almost all the books of our Bible were in use in the first two generations of Christians. If it took a little longer for the Church to decide to include those few additional books that are hardly ever used to establish any doctrine, it really doesn't affect the issue we're discussing at all.

Is the Bible an owner's manual that answers all questions?

It isn't much good at instructing us in how to bake brownies or mail a letter, no. It does, however, contain all that is necessary for salvation, as the Bible itself attests to.

When you speak of the rosary with intense cynicism

Oh, is that it? Or maybe I said that its use was unscriptural. But if I denigrated Scripture instead, then I wouldn't be cynical, right?

So the Rosary went through several incarnations and modifications.

If you missed the point, let it go.l

The Rosary is not dropped from the sky

But that is EXACTLY how the CC describes its origin. Good choice of wording. You got the point after all.

It is a prayer devotion.

It is not merely that (as I explained). Didn't I say that I would have no problem at all IF it were seen and used as a simple implement for counting prayers?

In Cathoicism it isn't required or forced on anyone.

So what? And I have to question that comment anyway. It certainly is expected, recommended, and it is believed to be able to work miracles, change the course of human history, and that the Virgin herself asked us to do it. Does that add up to something as neutral as, say, lighting a votive candle?

The Orthodox had the chotki

It's so different in nature from the Rosary that EOs prefer it not to be called a Rosary.

The disagreements we've been having in this thread are indicative that Anglicanism is, in some ways two religions in one---a sola scriptura faith based more on Calvin and an anglo-catholic one that values the Fathers and Scripture.

Based on Calvin, huh? What nonsense.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Unfortunately I'm done with discussing this and perhaps other things with you, Albion. I'm surprised how you use terms like 'nonsense' with me and barbs like 'you got it after all.' It's insulting. I'm done. If I want to look at Christianity through the lens of the Westminister Confession or anti-Catholic style CARM chats, I'll go to CARM. Unfortunate because you seem like a nice guy. The tone and tenor is just over the top. You draw conclusions about Catholics that sound like something taken from a Jack Chick cartoon, not from serious scholarship. I'll withdraw from this thread. It's just not productive. I'm not interested in exploring John Calvin.

I'm having a little trouble with my computer at present, so I think I'd better keep it short and hope to get it done. Don't interpret that as a critical "tone."

None of the points made above are true.



Not the phrase, no. But then neither is the Trinity in Scripture. The concept is clearly there and as I was saying on some thread, I posted about twenty different Bible verses the last time someone said that. I've come to believe that someone told someone else that SS is not in Scripture and by now anyone who disagrees with it just repeats that comment without having looked into it personally.


Almost all the books of our Bible were in use in the first two generations of Christians. If it took a little longer for the Church to decide to include those few additional books that are hardly ever used to establish any doctrine, it really doesn't affect the issue we're discussing at all.


It isn't much good at instructing us in how to bake brownies or mail a letter, no. It does, however, contain all that is necessary for salvation, as the Bible itself attests to.



Oh, is that it? Or maybe I said that its use was unscriptural. Those people who demean Scripture, however, aren't Cynical, though, are they?


If you missed the point, let it go.l



But that is EXACTLY how the CC describes its origin. Good choice of wording. You got the point after all.



It is not merely that (as I explained). Didn't I say that I would have no problem at all IF it were seen and used as a simple implement for counting prayers?



So what? And I have to question that comment anyway. It certainly is expected, recommended, and it is believed to be able to work miracles, change the course of human history, and that the Virgin herself asked us to do it. Does that add up to something as neutral as, say, lighting a votive candle?



It's so different in nature from the Rosary that EOs prefer it not to be called a Rosary.



Based on Calvin, huh? What nonsense.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

The key word there is similar. Yes, they have beads for counting and that's about it. If that were what the Dominican Rosary were, you wouldn't hear any protest from me. I have spelled out my points. Please read them.

No. Forum is confusing. If you do not repeat I cannot ding it.

I don't believe any of them have yet participated in this debate, so what is the point there?

I do not care. I told my point.

a statement that can be used to defend just about any doctrine.

No. The Pope. The Pope is the pilot. He sets the harboring port. We all go with his ship. Some jump overboard, but I will stay inside.

God Bless You

 

[Albion]

Unfortunately I'm done with discussing this and perhaps other things with you, Albion. I'm surprised how you use terms like 'nonsense' with me and barbs like 'you got it after all.' It's insulting.

I'm sorry you feel that way, my friend. You don't think that you were insulting and accusing me for little more than ideas that have been common among Anglicans since the Reformation? For Goodness' sake, I'm doing little more than referring to the OFFICIAL doctrinal statements of the Anglican Church, the Articles of Religion, for instance. IS that supposed to be contrary to Anglicanism? Why take after me for it?

You've talked about "tone." This sentence ("sola scriptura faith based more on Calvin and an anglo-catholic one that values the Fathers and Scripture") is so unbalanced IMO and untrue that I guess I was tongue-tied. Sorry.

I'm leaving the rest of your essay unquoted in hopes that you'll see how 'over the top' it is when you look at it again.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

God Bless You

And you too