Posted on 01/11/2005 11:30:36 AM PST by missyme
Actor Mel Gibson held a secret meeting with one of the famous visionaries of Fatima, Sister Lucia of Portugal. Sister Lucia, now 98 years of age, is a cloistered nun who as a child saw and spoke with the Virgin Mary in Fatima, Portugal in 1917.
Her visions and those of her two childhood friends, both since passed away, were both prophetic and apocalyptic. The Catholic Church accepted the visions as authentic.
>>Oh well. Keep on praying for them.<<
You got it!
And when I see the Catholic bigots come in, I will remind them again.
Peace my FRiend!
No, I wasn't aware that Medjugorie wasn't "approved" by the CC, but that's encouraging.
I'll admit I have more than my share of questions about ALL the marian apparitions.
While I admire the spiritual hunger of those searching for God, many of utterances by other various marian entities (i.e. 'Our Lady' of: Fatima, Guadeloupe, Mount Carmel, Balestrino) is troubling as well.
Now THAT'S a scary place...
FWIW, I know many Catholics who don't understand the Catholic Church. I myself was raised a Catholic. I am quite familiar with it's doctrine, traditions, and protocol.
What you and a few Catholic brothers and sisters deem "bashing" here is the calling for the honest deconstruction of it's dogma, vigilance in the acceptance of marian apparitions, and the simple reminder of observing the Holy Scriptures.
Not that I want to get into this discussion... but I feel it just has to be said.
Is it that the one billion plus Catholics (Along with the three hundred million plus Orthodox Christians in the world) put more emphasis on Mary than other Christians, or that Protestant denominations, which are certainly in the minority and rather a bit younger in the historical scheme of things, simply do not give enough to the Theotokos?
something in the water? St elmo's fire perhaps.
Your post reminds me of a bumper sticker I used to see in Alaska. It read "Eat Moose, 200,000 wolves can't be wrong". If numbers are all that matter, I suppose we should all convert to Islam because Muslims will soon outnumber Christians if they don't already. And if the age of your religious faith is all that matters, perhaps we should all convert to Hinduism, as it is clearly older than Catholicism or even Judaism. Now since clearly, we can both agree that neither Hindus nor Muslims have found the right answers despite their numbers or history, perhaps we can both agree that the fact there are more Catholics than Protestants proves exactly nothing with regard to Marian doctrine.
I didn't say that it makes Catholic doctrine right. The original poster acted as though Catholics were an aberation in that they held a belief different from Protestant denominations. I simply put the matter into perspective.
Most Christians throughout the world hold Mary in a position of high reverence. Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians are the majority. Protestants are in the minority. We aren't the "odd man out", so to speak. THAT was my point.
What year were you born?
>>What you and a few Catholic brothers and sisters deem "bashing" here is the calling for the honest deconstruction of it's dogma, vigilance in the acceptance of marian apparitions, and the simple reminder of observing the Holy Scriptures.<<
You seem to be very sincere,
Please understand, that when you come into a thread that is so Catholic, you seem to be Catholic Bashing. We get it here all the time. I know you are trying to help, but we bristle at it.
Just as my children come to me to interceed with their Dad when they want something, we go to Mary to interceed when we do. Yes, only God gives but "Two are praying together". My own sister told me that she could never pray to Jesus, she is not worthy. You may laugh at that, but as you know, the one thing that is always taught to Catholics is that we are not worthy. A Catholic who is true to the dogma does not pray, "Oh Mary give me....", we always pray, "Oh Mary help me, Ask your Divine Son...."
Please look into an author named Scott Hahn. His work is "speaking" to my husband who is Presbyterian. He is a strong follower of Marian devotions and might help you understand. Not to bring you back, but rather to give you the big picture.
An ex-Catholic is far stronger in conviction than any other "ex" that I have found. Most had bad experiences in the church, but really if you think that is exclusive to being Catholic you are wrong. My Niece-in-law had her family kicked out of their Pentecostal church for a one night stand the father had. They lost their path to Christ for years. They are back now.
It's funny how their family and I can speak religion but never fight. All we know is that we are bathed in the Glory of Jesus. They don't care if I cover my head and use a rosary to meditate on the life of Christ, just that I have a relationship with Him.
So now I will ask you, why is it that I do not see you on Salem, Sjackson, Alouette or Yonif's threads ministering to the Jews? Are they not worthy of a simple reminder of observing the Holy Scriptures? Or is it just Catholics.
Thanks!
Thunderhead, Son of Fatima.
All references to Mary in Scripture are found in the following New Testament verses:
Mt 1,2; Lk 1:26-2:40 (birth & infancy of Christ)
Lk 2:41-51 (Jesus left in Jerusalem at age 12)
Jn 2:1-11 (marriage feast of Cana)
Jn 2:12 (visit to Capernaum)
Mt 12:45-50; Mk 3:20-35; Lk 8:19-21 (Mary & Jesus' brothers come to Capernaum)
Mt 13:55,56; Mk 6:3,4; Jn 6:42 (doubters question Jesus' origin)
Jn 19:25-27 (Jesus' crucifiction) Acts 1:14 (prayer after Christ's ascension)
Rm 1:3; Gal 4;4 (Paul's references to Mary - not by name)
Scripture is mute about Mary's latter years concerning life, death and burial. There is no description concerning her character, virtue, or physical appearance. Neither are there any examples of anyone praying to her or venerating her - none.
Nevertheless, according to Catholic dogma, Mary is honored as the Mother of God, since she's the mother of Jesus, Jesus is god and so by extension she becomes the mother of God. However, the Bible never refers to Mary as the Mother of God. There is no such reference for one very good reason: God has no mother. Just as Christ had no earthly father, his divine nature had no mother. Jn 2:1, Acts 1:14 refer to Mary as the mother of Jesus. The Roman Catholic Cathechism stipulates otherwise [963, 971, 2677] based on what is called Tradition, and this title is firmly established by the Council of Ephasus A.D. 431 [466, 495] (see: Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius, canon 1).
The council was far from a meeting of spiritual Christians prayerfully seeking the mind of God. The council was summoned by co-emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III at the request of Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople. He was seeking an opportunity to defend himself. In a regional council held in Rome the year before, Nestorius was condemned for his criticism of the use of the Greek word theotokos meaning God-bearer, to describe Mary. He was a strong opponent to Arianist heresy which held that Christ was a created being. Nestorius feared that calling Mary the God-bearer implied the same heresy, namely, that Mary had generated a member of the Trinity.
Strong rivalries and church politics dominated the Council at Ephasus. Historians describe it one of the most repulsive contests in church history. Before all the bishops even arrived, Nestorious was accused by his opponents of splitting Christ into two distinct persons, and so declared him a heretic and the 34 bishops who supported him were branded apostates.
This brings forth the whole issue of Tradition itself, and what place it holds within the Roman Catholic Church. Anybody who believes that the Bible is incomplete has some serious doctrinal issues. According to Dt 29:29, the mind of God can be known according to what He reveals to us in the Word. II Tim 3:16 tells us that all scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Scripture is inspired by the ONLY infallible being in the universe: God. Furthermore, it is entirely truthful even concerning its account of lies and errors (of which there are many). For example Satan's lie to Eve concerning the forbidden fruit, or his quote in Isa 14:13,14. Satan didn't lie, but he is erroneous in his belief. God truthfully answers him in v15.
Significant parallels can be drawn between the authority structure of the Roman Catholic Church and of first-century Judaism. Similar to Rome's pope and bishops, Jerusalem was the base of the "Council of the elders of the people (Lk 22:66), known as the Sanhedrin, "the Senate of the sons of Israel" (Acts 5:21). The Jewish high priest presided over this body and served as its head (Mt 26:3, 57, 62-65; Acts 5;21, 27; 7:1; 9:1; 22:5; 23:2-5). The Roman government allowed the Sanhedrin to function (with some restrictions) as the supreme political, religious and judicial body of the Jews in Judea (Mt 5;22, Jn 3:1; 7:26, 48; Acts 3:17; 4:5,8).
At least two schools of thought were represented among the membership of the Sanhedrin (acts 23:6-8). The aristocratic high-priestly families and their associates were of the sect of Sadducees (Acts 5:17). Others were of the party of Pharisees. The Pharisees were known for their strict and detailed interpretation of the Law (Mt 5;20; 23:23). They were accustomed to receiving the front seats of the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places (Lk 11:43). Much the same as the Roman Magisterium, the scribes and pharisees considered themselves to be the authoritative teachers of the law and sought to dictate to the common people the proper observance of every aspect of Jewish faith (Mt 9:11; 12:2; 23:2-36). As is true of Roman Catholicism today, they held to a joint authority of Scripture and Tradition (Mt 15:2; Mk 7:3,5,9,13). They taught that Moses handed down the law received on Mount Sinai in two ways. The first was orally (called the unwritten Torah). The Jews surviving the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, started a movement to commit this tradition into writing and is known today as the Mishna. The second form of Moses' law was the written Torah. The Pharisees taught that both together comprise the complete Torah.
Jesus said of them, "The scribes and Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses" (Mt 23:2), intimating they had not received their authority from God. Nowhere did the Hebrew Scriptures instruct them to set up the Sanhedrin, to submit to the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, or to recognize oral tradition alongside Scripture.
Jesus in fact refused to subject His ministry to the Sanhedrin, the scribes or Pharisees, or Tradition. And in so doing a showdown would become inevitable. This is illustrated in Mk 7:5, where the challenge was levied that the apostles failed to conduct themselves according to tradition. The issue here was not that of dirty hands, but adhering to oral law, or Tradition. Jesus was not intimidated, in fact he rebuked them by saying:
"Rightly did Isaiah prophecy of you hypocrites, as it is written. This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far removed from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." - Mk 7:6,7
With intentional sting, the Lord continued His rebuke, intimating that the oral Torah was held in consideration above that of God's Word, and that they "...nicely set aside the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men" (Mk 7:8,9), in other words the Pharisees had elevated the teachings of men to be at least of the same level of authority as that of Scripture. Jesus gave them credit though, in that they did it in style i.e. "nicely", for how cleverly they could slip God's commandments to the side to clear the way for strict obedience to their own Traditions. Jesus went on to say, that with these Traditions they were "invalidating the word of God" (Mk 7:13, and de facto stamping the Scriptures null and void.
In this way Jesus rejected man-made authority of the first-century Jews. He refused to submit to Tradition, the teaching of authority of the Scribes and the Pharisees, or the ruling authority of the Sanhedrin that they represented. Nevertheless, what Jesus rejected, the Roman Catholic Church restored. It has elevated Tradition to the same level of authority as God's inspired Scriptures. Its pope and bishops have laid claim to universal jurisdiction and sole teaching authority, all the while honoring God with its lips "...this Magesterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed to it." [see: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, no. 10 - Second Vatican Council]. Consider the following (numbers in brackets reference RCC paragraphs):
1) Peter was the head of apostles [532, 765, 880] - Christ is the head of the apostles (Jn 13:13)
2) Bishops are successors to apostles [861, 862, 938] - The apostles had no successors (Acts 1:21,22)
3)The pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is Peter's successor [882, 936] - Peter had no successor (Acts 1:21,22 intimates one needed to be a witness to Christ's resurrection)
4) The bishops, with the pope as their head, rule the universal Church [883, 894-896] - Christ, the head of the body, rules the universal church (Col 1:18)
5) God entrusted revelation to the Roman Catholic biships [81, 86] - God entrusted revelation to the saints i.e. all believing Christians (Jude 3)
6) The Magisterium is the authoritative teacher of the Church [85-87] - The Holy Spirit is the authoritative teacher of the church (Jn 14:26; 16:13; I Jn 2:27)
7) The Magisterium is the infallible interpreter of Scripture [890-891, 2034-2035] - Scripture itself is the only infallibe interpreter of Scripture (Acts 17:11)
8) The pope is infallible in his authoritative teaching [891] - God alone is infallible (Nu 23:19)
9) The Magisterium alone has the ability and right to interpret [85,100, 939] - Every Christian, aided by the Holy Ghost, has the ability and the right to interpret Scripture (Acts 17:11; I Cor 2:12-16)
10) Scripture is to be interpreted in the sense in which it has been defined by the Magisterium [113, 119] - Scripture must be interpreted in the original sense the Holy Ghost intended (II Pt 3:14-16)
11) The Magisterium has the right to define truth found only obscurely or implicitely in revelation - No one has the right to go beyond what is written in Scripture (I Cor 4:6; Prov 30:6)
12) Scripture and Tradition together are the Word of God [81, 85, 97, 182] - Scripture is the Word of God (Jn 10:35; II Tim 3:16,17; II Pt 1:20,21;), Tradition is the mark of men (Mk 7:1-13)
13) Scripture and Tradition together are the Church's supreme rule of faith [80, 82] - Scripture alone is the Supreme Court of all matters concerning doctrine and faith, and is a court from which there is NO appeal (Mk 7:7-13; II Tim 3:16,17).
Each and every claim that the Roman Catholic Church makes concerning Mariolotry can be refuted - categorically and unequivically. The Roman Catholic Church bases its views in the belief upon Mary's perpetual virginity based upon Tradition, philosophy and the existential writings of Thomas Aquinas. The Bible says nothing about God preserving Mary's "virginal integrity inviolate" (see: The Roman Catechism: The Catechism of the Council of Trent, pg. 46), nor did Mary refrain from sexual contact with Joseph after Jesus was born. The fact of the matter, Scripture frequently mentions Christ's brothers, half-brothers and half-sisters.
Neither was Mary a sinless saint. As a decendent of Adam, Mary, like everybody else decended from him, was born a sinner. Mary had a father, and since the sin nature is imparted through the paternal line, Mary was born sinful. Christ on the other hand had no father, and for this reason he was born without sin (Rm 5:12).
The Douay Bible (the fore runner of the modern Catholic Bible), is based on Latin texts, states in Lk 1:28 that Mary was "full of grace." The original Greek reads, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." The original text that the Latin is based upon stems from the Alexandrian texts. The Alexandrians were Gnostics, and there is much perversion of that text in contrast to the Greek text (having vastly superior number of MSS, and the overwhelming majority of MSS are almost entirely in agreement with each other. This is absolutely untrue about the Alexandrian and other Gnostic MSS - not only are they numerically inferior but there are vast differences between differing MSS). God favored Mary by choosing her to bear His Son, not by preserving her from Adam's sin. God blessed Mary among woman (Lk 1:28 KJV), not above women. Scripture teaches that only Christ was the sinless one (II Cor 5;21; I Pt 2:22; I Jn 3:5), and there's no room for interpretation to the contrary (Ecc 7:20). The angels themselves acknowlege this (Rev 15:4). And the Lord himself stated it (Lk 18:19). Paul puts a period at the end of it (Rm 3;10, 12, 23). Mary herself exhalts Christ as her personal saviour (Lk 1:46,47). Nobody has any need for a savior unless they are under the penalty of the law. The law imputes sin, and condemns to death all those convicted of it (Gen 2:17; 3:19; Rm 6:23). The fact that Mary died is further evidence of her sin nature.
The Roman Catholic Church disagrees saying that Mary did not die because of sin, either personal or original. Furthermore, it states that she was translated into heaven, akin to Enoch and Elija (and there's some speculation in Jude 9 (cf Dt 34:5) with respect to what happened to Moses). The foundation for this dogma is based upon a document (Munificentissimus Deux, No. 26) authored by pope Pius XII whereby he attempts to establish a Scriptural basis for Mary's assumption (Gn 3:15; Psa 131:8; 44:10-14; Sol 3:6; 4:8; 6:9; 8:5; Isa 61:13; Lk 1:28; Rm 5, 6; I Cor 15:21-26,54-57; Rev 12). Of these only Lk 1:28 even refer to Mary in any way at all. In fact, Pius XII own admission was that the Scripture references cited were put forth by theologians and preachers who had been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Scripture so as to explain their belief in Mary's translation. But that didn't bother the pope, and he endorsed the dogma as official Roman Catholic doctrine anyway.
Roman Catholicism teaches Mary to be co-redeemer [494, 963-973]. Scripture is clear that there's only ONE redeemer (Isa 49:26; Col 1:13,14; Rm 3:24). Roman Catholicism goes as far to say that Mary offered Christ to the Eternal Father at Golgatha (see: Mystici Corporis by pope Pius XII). This is an outright contradiction of Scripture (He 9:14). As if that was insufficient, the Roman Catholic Church states that Mary, along with Christ's work, redeemed mankind (see: Inter Solodicia by pope Benedict XV). And in fact the Second Vatican Council [968] states that Mary's sufferings contributed to the redemption of man (see: Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, No. 61 - Second Vatican Council). Benedict XV claimed that Mary's sufferings were so intense that this brought her close to the very threshold of death, and as a result participated with Jesus in the act of redemption (see: Inter Soladicia). Pius XII termed Mary as the co-operatrix in man's redemption (see: Ad Coeli Reginam). The Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, concerning indulgences (published 26 Jun 1913 in Acta Apostolicae Sedis) states Mary is "our corredemptor", pope Pius IX says that Mary triumphed utterly over the ancient serpent at the Cross (see: Ineffablis Deus). Furthermore, according to pope Leo XIII, Mary was the major force behind the spreading the Gospel after the death and resurrection of Christ [965] (see: Adutricem Populi).
Roman Catholic Dogma holds that Mary is the Mediatress of all Grace [968-971, 975, 2673-2682]. It argues out of Jn 2: 1-11 concerning Mary's intercesion brought about the beginning of Jesus performing miracles. But Jesus' response (v3) to Mary's request (v2) was "Woman, what do I have to do with you? My hour has not yet come." Mary needed to know that Jesus was not subject to her requests, but to do His Father's will. Jesus nevertheless did graciously provide the guests with wine. This proves nothing respecting the intercessionary ability of Mary, and if it proves anything, one should ask Jesus for it. And I Tim 2:5 states that explicitely.
And then there's the veneration of Mary [971, 2676-2679, 2682] which is a special cult, or form of devotion. Concerning devotion, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes three different forms of honor:
1)Latria - adoration reserved for God alone
2)hyperdulia - adoration reserved specifically for Mary
3)dulia - simple veneration for all saints and angels.
The most common form of hyperdulia is praying the Rosary [971, 1674, 2708]. The Rosary is considered to be the epitome of the whole Gospel [971] whereby a series of prayers are counted on a string of beads, that are arranged in groups of 10 small beads separated by a large bead. There are five sets of these decades. On the large bead, the Our Father, or Lord's Prayer is recited, on each of the small beads, Catholics pray the Hail Mary. For this task, the Church offers a partial indulgence, or removal of part of the temporal punishment due to sin [1471-1479, 1498]. Plenary indulgence, a complete remission of all temporal punishment stored up at the time, by praying the Rosary, receiving the sacraments of confession and Eucharist, and offering prayers for the Pope's intentions [1471].
All this flies straight in the face of God's Word: " Mt 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." The foregoing merely is the tip of the iceberg with respect to Mariolotry. All of Mariolotry itself is only absolute pinnacle of the icebergs tip with respect to the whole of Roman Catholic doctrine. When the sum total of Roman Catholic dogma is examined, it becomes utterly clear that Roman Catholicism has no comprehension of the meaning contained in Romans 4:5. That verse by itself is the Colt .45 silver bullet fired into the heart of that beast.
Classy. Very classy.
So, Sr. Lucia isn't being "kept behind bars", she's there because she wants to be.
BRAVO ... very well stated!!!
The penalty for sin is death. If God could create humans that are free from the burdon of Original Sin, He never would have needed to die in the first place. And His law would mean nothing. But since all humans are born into sin, our only hope for salvation is through His resurrection.
OC: He created exactly 3 humans free from original sin: Adam, Eve, and Mary. He chose to bring his Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity, into time through birth by a woman. He was at once human and divine. That woman, Mary was held free from original and other personal sin from her conception through her natural death and assumption into heaven for the purpose of bearing the Christ, the Messiah within her body. Intellectualizing this will never get us there. We are called to have faith.
The salvation Christ provided would not have been possible if He hadn't been sacrificed. If He had been born of Mary, but died of old age, He would not have fulfilled the law. It was not His birth that saved us, but His sacrifice and resurrection. Therefore, Mary was not THE requirement for the fulfillment of His law. She was one part of it. In addition to Mary, Christ "needed" somebody to sentence him to death. Pilate was just as much a part of that plan as Mary. Both were human, borne of human, sinful parents. Neither were God. I believe only God can be free of sin. I can't find anything in God's inspired Word that says otherwise.
OC: Her yes to God was a requirement in order to fulfill God's plan in the manner to which He wanted it fulfilled. We can speculate all day on other means God could have used for Jesus to enter time, but the fact is he used Mary with her full consent. Nobody else on the planet at the time could have conceived the Messiah. Your assertiion that she wasn't THE requirement is correct, her fidelity and trust in the Lord was INTEGRAL to God's plan for salvation. Pilate on the other hand was in the wrong place a the wrong time. Whoever would have been procurator of Judea at that time would have faced the same situation. He was only integral to the Passion due to his assignment at the time. Had he set Jesus free, the Pharisees and Sanhedrin would have found some other way to kill Jesus. As it was they had waited sometime to do it by the time it happened anyway. But as it happened, Pilate played his part, and had Jesus scourged and crucified.
You are right in that we are all saved by His suffering, death, and resurrection. We are also saved by imitating His life and being Him to others. We have a responsibility to be the body of Christ on earth in our time.
Thanks for your kind prayer on my behalf. I do believe, and I have deep personal conviction, in metaphysical spiritality. I experienced profound evidences of it as a profound REALITY.
Are you acquainted with the Virgin's last message given in the Medjugorje vision? The Message is simple and universal.
As an aside, are you aware Nostradamus' prophecy warned that the Anti-Christ's name was the same spelt forwards as backwards? Ergo: SOROS. Curious...I can only believe it.
Agnosticism is not an orthodoxy of beliefs nor of disbeliefs.
I believe in Christian humanism as expressed - the ultimate self-discipline for one's conscience and compassion.
Agnosticism is not an orthodoxy of beliefs nor of disbeliefs.
I believe in Christian humanism as expressed - the ultimate self-discipline for one's conscience and compassion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.