Posted on 02/19/2010 11:32:44 PM PST by bogusname
THE LADY OF FATIMA- Introduction Some Roman Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Christ, has actually appeared to people in places like Fatima and Medjugorje. Well, did she?
THE LADY OF FATIMA- Biblical? In evaluating the alleged appearances of Mary, our primary concern would be to determine whether these apparitions are indeed biblical. Interestingly enough, these “Marian apparitions” (as they are commonly referred to) are inextricably woven together with the official Catholic teachings about Mary which, by the way, is known as Mariology. In fact, it would be fair to say that Catholic Mariology is the very foundation of Marian apparitions. It’s been well said that a structure is only as solid as its foundation; and in looking at Marian apparitions, we need to examine the integrity of this whole concept referred to as Catholic Mariology.
(Excerpt) Read more at equip.org ...
How do you know that God inspired the Bible? How do you know of the Bible at all? We do believe that God works through men. If he made scribes of them, he also made them interpreters.
Yes, I know well that Luther was a catholic. My point was Luthers devotion to Mary. Which he kept long after he left/was booted out of, the church.
The same devotion that most protestants now reject. And try to dance around. And excuse. And pretend not to see.
Then PV of Mary is in the Lutheran Confessions along with the Marian doctrines that ML was exposed to as a monk? Gonna have to become a Calvinist then.
Which failed to manifest itself in the Lutheran Confessions? Catholics dance around the fact that reformers were Catholic. Outrageous practices of the church at the time of the Reformation and study of the Scriptures made them try to reform the church. Not holding some Catholic beliefs is what would be strange. Those beliefs didn't pass Scriptural muster so they aren't in those reformers' doctrinal efforts. Not that tough. Having never been a Catholic, I am not burdened by that same outlook.
The same devotion that most protestants now reject. And try to dance around. And excuse. And pretend not to see.
Do Protestants reject Mary? Or is it because most don't 'venerate' her the way Catholics do that makes you assume we do? I see, I see, ML was devoted to Mary, so much so he was excommunicated. Mary didn't protect him I guess.
“How do you know that God inspired the Bible? How do you know of the Bible at all?”
If you cannot believe in the Bible, you should not be calling yourself a Christian (catholic or otherwise).
I believe the Bible is the Word of God. I believe that God wrote it through men. from Paradise lost in Genesis to paradise regained in Revelations. It is one book, 4000 years in the making. God used kings, shepherds, fishermen, and even a Greek Physician to write the Bible. over 4000 years they all agree, they are all consistent. Try getting that level of consistent policies from democrats over the last 40 years—it won’t happen.
I believe god is powerful enough to ensure His Word stays pure through all these ages. And History agrees with me.
If your God is not that powerful, then I feel sorry for you.
You people like to quote Luther. like that means anything.
If only you could quote the Bible as well as you know the words of men, you just might have a valid argument then.
The Catholic church is not the one true church. not anymore.
When it embraced mysticism, magic bones and relics with healing powers (that never existed in the Bible), the RCC began to leave the realm of Christianity.
God does not need the one true church. He can raise a church from any source of faithful believers.
I have been told that apart from Catholicism, there is no salvation.
But I am saved by the Blood of Christ, not by the Catholic Church.
Praying to saints,
Purgatory ( means of salvation apart from Jesus)
Indulgences
These are things that are so profound that if they are not in the Bible, they should be rejected. Tradition is far to corruptible to entrust such dramatic doctrines to.
The Bible is the final authority. If a doctrine is NOT in the Bible, it is not from God. Your traditions are NOT from God.
So, let me get this straight. A God who takes Elijah up to heaven in a chariot, then later brings him down to talk to Jesus, about 900 years later, can’t take Mary up to heaven? Or, bring her back down?
Same with Moses and Enoch? Is there a limit on how many times God can do this?
That is pretty remarkable isn’t it? That God can take some people up to heaven and then bring them down when He wants to? But He won’t do it with Mary?
Is there scripture talking about the death of Mary? Only people mentioned in the bible can be taken up to heaven?
And what about angels? Scripture is full of angels talking and dealing with men on earth.
2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Hmmmmm. Did the disciples later PRAY to Moses and Elijah? No.
There is no scripture that details Mary’s death. Does that allow for people saying she ascended into heaven like Jesus? No.
Tradition is men pulling fables out of thin air. Without scripture to back it up, Mary did not ascend into heaven.
WITHOUT SCRIPTURE IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. I don’t care what some yahoo pope tells you, he is wrong.
Your traditions are wrong. They are lies. Search the Bible for truth, you will find it there.
We don’t dance around the reformers being catholic. At the time of the revolt EVERYBODY was catholic.
Many great saints stayed in the church during the counter-reformation.
There was a problem in the church. Some, like Luther, decided to leave and start his own church. Others, like St. Pope Pius V, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Ignatius Loyola and many others, stayed in the church.
We’ve had some bad presidents of these United States. Because we’ve had some bad presidents, does that make the Constituion a bad document? The United States a bad country?
I don’t think so.
Mary was assumed into heaven. Jesus ascended, Mary was brought up to heaven. Like Elijah and Enoch and Moses.
So, all church history, because it’s not in scripture, didn’t happen?
What about the scripture verse that tells us that everything that Jesus did and said are not in scripture? And if it were it would fill many books?
Or what about Jesus telling us that everything that He did, we would do? And more besides?
Apparently God, in your view, is somehow limited to the confines of scripture. Which He never told anybody to write.
Remember, Jesus didn’t promise us a bible, He promised us a church. That’s scripture.
Show me “Trinity” in the bible. It’s not there, yet you believe in the Trinity.
Show me where Jesus told anybody to write scripture. He didn’t.
Remember, Jesus didn’t promise us a bible, He promised us a church. That’s scripture.
Amazing. you have to dismiss the very Word of God in order to believe in your “traditions.”
I feel sorry for you. You’re denying yourself so much enlightenment and truth for what? the lies of men.
No thanks. I will trust in the Bible, and reject you fancy fables.
I wouldn't compare the Constitution to the Bible. I would hope you're not.
Some, like Luther, decided to leave and start his own church.
Was he not excommunicated? Running for his life? I'd leave too.
We’ve had some bad presidents of these United States.
Presidents can't make salvation binding proclamations. Well maybe the current one thinks he can but that is beside the point. I believe that the Catholic church has some bad doctrine, not all of it but some. Does that make me a bad person?
I don’t think so.
Neither do I.
My friend, you have been given a distorted view of what catholics believe. Here’s something I copied that might help shed some light on things. I hope you read it.
Sola Scriptura vs. Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Church
Forty days after His resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven. Ten days later the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles on Pentecost Sunday. On that day about 3,000 new converts were baptized and entered the Church. Not one word had yet been written which would become the New Testament; it did not yet exist. These early Christians did not have a New Testament; they only had word of mouth, i.e., Tradition.
By the end of the first century, the New Testament had been written but all the books which comprise it had not yet been assembled into a single unit. Various church communities had portions of it. Many books existing in one community did not exist in another. Many books were also in circulation which were read with equal fervor but which never ended up in the New Testament.
The predominant method of passing on the faith was still by word of mouth, i.e., preaching and teaching, i.e., Tradition.
Most people were illiterate and most people, under any circumstances, would not have had any copy of any of these books in their possession. Sacred Tradition was still the principle method by which the faith was transmitted by means of preaching as mandated by Christ. Readings from these books were heard at the Sunday Breaking of the Bread, what we now call the Mass. Many of these oral Traditions eventually got written down by the end of the first century and became part of the New Testament. But not all these oral Traditions got written down, yet they persisted as part of Jesus’ teachings. These too were eventually written down in the writings of the Church Fathers.
By the end of the fourth century, at the Council of Carthage in 397, the Church had finally accepted those books which became the Canon of the New Testament. Up until that time many of books had been in dispute and, as mentioned, many of them did not make it into the New Testament. The official Canon of the New Testament remained inaccessible to most Christians through the centuries that followed, right through the Middle Ages.
When the printing press was invented, the Bible became more accessible but the majority of Christians remained illiterate and few people possessed copies of the Bible. It was far too costly for most people to purchase. Most churches might have had a copy and this was usually chained in place so no one would steal it. Some Protestants have claimed that these Bibles were chained in order to keep them away from the people. But anyone who wished to read the Bible, if able, could use this chained Bible in the church. But for most of the centuries of Christianity, the Bible was totally inaccessible to most Christians, because of its rarity and its cost, and because of illiteracy.
It remains inaccessible to millions of Christians, and non-Christians, to this day, due to illiteracy. Yet these illiterate Christians have still heard the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. And readings from Scripture are an essential part of every Mass because every Mass is divided into the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, just as described by St. Justin Martyr in 155 A.D. The Liturgy of the Word consists of readings from the Bible.
What does this reality say about the Protestant position that the Bible is the only source of God’s Revelation? Would God provide a source of His truth in a mode that was totally inaccessible to most Christians through most of Christian history? Did not Jesus say, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. . . .” [Matthew 28:19]
Of course this admonishes them to teach; it says nothing about writing. And the Bible itself says nothing about it being the sole source of God’s revelation. Sola Scriptura is un-Biblical. Scripture says nothing about the Apostles being commanded to write anything. Rather it commands them to preach. Preaching was and is therefore the principle method by which God’s truth is revealed to us.
“Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; by which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins.” [1 Corinthians 15:1-3]. “But the word of the Lord endures for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel has been preached unto you.” [1 Peter 1:25]. The Gospel has not been written unto you. The words “preached,” “delivered,” and “received” refer to oral transmission.
[I]t is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different. They have been handed down and entrusted to the Church. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13). [www.catholic.com]
Now, Jesus said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church [Matthew 16]. He also said, “I have told you this while I am with you. The Advocate, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” [John 14:25-26] Divine revelation, i.e., the Deposit of Faith, ended when the last Apostle died. Everything that the Church has taught since then is simply the passing down through the centuries of this Deposit of Faith from Jesus and the Apostles.
The Holy Spirit would never allow error to creep in to this teaching, the Deposit of Faith. That does not mean that individuals themselves would not fall into error and become heretics, but the Church itself, the Magisterium, would, could never error. The Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” [1 Timothy 3:15] It never says anywhere in the Bible that Scripture is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” because the Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth.” This teaching remains intact, even if some of it is not in Scripture. All Sacred Tradition of the Church, not in Scripture, has come down to us from the first century, from Jesus and the Apostles. No teachings have been added or patched in, ever.
So when dogmas are formalized, such as the Immaculate Conception in 1854, that does not mean that this teaching did not exist until then. It existed from the first century. Our understanding of various teachings has grown and deepened through the centuries. This is sometimes called “The Development of Christian Doctrine.” Development of doctrine is defined as the increase in understanding — by means of the teaching of the Holy Spirit, prayer, theological study, and the reflection of the Body of Christ as a whole — of Christian doctrines which originated from the Lord Jesus Himself and which have been passed down through the Apostles, Fathers, Councils, and the Catholic Church in general. [Catechism of the Catholic Church, #94]
I once undertook an experiment: I read from the entire New Testament at the rate of about 20 minutes per day. It took me about six weeks to complete. Jesus spent most of three years, nearly 24/7, with His Apostles. “[R]emember that for three years, night and day, I unceasingly admonished each of you. . . .” [John 20:31]. He obviously said much more to them than 20 minutes per day for six weeks. “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” [John 21:25]. So most of what He taught never got written down, but has been passed down to us by word of mouth, as Tradition. Jesus said, “Observe ALL that I have commanded.” This certainly includes everything Jesus taught, which is both in Scripture and outside Scripture. It would seem, logically, that these verses are enough to disprove Sola Scriptura. Matt 24:14 “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.” Many verses support this argument that Jesus taught many things that were never recorded in Scripture:
Mark 4:2: He taught them many things by parables. . . .
Luke 5:3: He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little from shore. Then he sat down and taught the people from the boat. [It was not recorded what he taught them]
Mark 4:33: With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand.
John 4:40-42: When the Samaritans came to him, they invited him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. Many more began to believe in him because of his word, and they said to the woman, “We no longer believe because of your word; for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the savior of the world.” [Nothing is recorded regarding what Jesus taught to them during these two days.]
Luke: 5:3: He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little from shore. Then he sat down and taught the people from the boat.
Mark 6:34: . . . He began to teach them many things. [none of these “many things” are recorded here.]
John 16:12: I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. [These “many things” must have been spoken during Jesus’ post-Resurrection appearances; few of them are recorded.]
John 20:30: Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.
Acts 1:2-3: . . .the apostles. . . to them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. [These are not recorded in the Bible.]
Sola Scriptura is a very dangerous dogma because it says that each individual is inspired by the Holy Spirit in the reading of Scripture. In other words it says that each person is infallible. So how does one explain the contradictions within Protestant, and other non-Catholic Christian, Biblical interpretations, as well as between individuals? Would the Holy Spirit contradict Himself? Sola Scriptura opens up the possibility of incorrect understanding of Scripture and, placed in the hands of charlatans and the ignorant, interpretations can be made which are harmful. Interpretations can be made and twisted to suit anybody’s wishes and preconceived notions.
Therefore an authority is necessary to interpret Scripture, an authority other than one’s prideful self. “Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He (Jesus) interpreted to them what referred to Him in all the Scriptures.” [Luke 24:28] There are “certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable distort, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction [2 Peter 3:16] The Church existed before the New Testament. Jesus did not leave behind any writings nor did He command that anything be written down. The New Testament grew out of the Church. And nowhere in the Bible does it say what books belong in the Bible. The Church decided what books belong there, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So when a Protestant reads the Bible, he is acceding to the authority of the Catholic Church.
The Protestant argument for Sola Scriptura is often based upon 1 Corinthians 4:6:”Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” But this is St. Paul’s reiteration of 2 Peter 3:16 (see above).
St. Paul makes three statements arguing for the truth of Tradition: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which were taught, whether by word or by letter from us.” [2 Thess. 2:15] “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.” [2 Thess 3:6] “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” [1Cor 11:2] Now, a Protestant argument goes like this: “The Bible does not tell us that there is a pool of Tradition which exists separately from the Bible. Nor does the Bible give to this alleged tradition the weight of added certainty of the revelation of God that is necessary for our Salvation or Sanctification or Service.
When things of substance are spoken of in the Bible, the apostles appealed to the Written Word and not to an alleged outside source of tradition.” [www.sxws.com]. First of all this argument is logically in error because Tradition, by its very nature, consists of a pool of beliefs. There is no need for the Bible to say there is a pool of tradition; it is self evident. Secondly, whenever statements are made about the Apostles appealing to Scripture, they are always appealing to the Old Testament. The New Testament had not yet been written. And the Jews had many traditions not found in the Old Testament. Finally, all arguments against Sacred Tradition fall flat in the face of Timothy 3:15.
So true.. deserves a huge BUMP!
The Rosary is my daily weapon...
Bookmark for future multiple reference and thank you for posting!
Cap’n Crunch that is such a load of El Torro de Poopoo.
Sorry but but I have to call it for what it is. You just denied the Bible in favor of tradition! The early saints had the apostles and eye witnesses to guide them, they were filled with the Holy Spirit. There was no need for tradition.
Nothing in the bible supports your bizarre traditions. The Catholic church is not free to pull tradition from this air.
Your entire argument supporting tradition is bogus. If the early Christians prayed to anyone other than Jesus we would have read it in the Bible.
If the church was free to invent tradition at any time, why aren’t you defending indulgences? Thats a long standing Catholic tradition.
Sorry but the Word of God trumps your traditions every time. After reading the Bible, I utterly reject any of your traditions.
Mary is not a Goddess. She is a dead sinner.
MARY IS NOT WORTHY OF MY PRAYERS. ONLY GOD IS WORTHY.
Why not, you guys weren't using it. Shame to let the power of God's Word go to waste.
So from henceforth all generations shall call you blessed??
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.