Church Affirms Virgin Mary Apparition in Wisconsin

The Los Angeles Times ^ | 12/15/10 | Rick Rojas

[ArrogantBustard]

Of course you are referring to 1 Timothy 3:15 --

Congratulations ... a bit of quick wwweb research is a good thing. A bit more reflection is a better thing. Whatever the context of that passage may be, the fact remains that St. Paul identifies the Church as the "pillar and ground of truth".

He cannot possibly have been identifying Scripture as such, for reasons I will not insult your intelligence by enumerating.

Because the Roman Church often holds to itself as the (only true) household-- and historically... to the exclusion of other streams of faith...

When two "streams of faith" offer contradictory assertions of Truth, at most one of them is right, and at least one of them is wrong. In trivial example, to assert that the Moon is made of Stilton is to exclude the possibility that it is Monterey Jack.

We have an inherently different point of view.

Clearly. From your POV, this business of "Marian Apparitions" apparently seems arrant nonsense. Fine ... but we already knew that, didn't we? So what point in demanding of those who reject "sola scriptura" as heresy that they prove something purely from Scripture? That, to me, seems arrant nonsense. Better, I think, to simply ask "Why do practice as you do, and why do you believe what you believe? What is the basis of your belief? How do your actions follow from it?" In the end, the questioner may well still disagree, but at least he will have learned something.

[Wings-n-Wind]

First thanks for your thoughtful replies,-- though we don't seem to agree on much... I appreciate the challenging exchange,

Only a few questions remain...
If I may...

**************

YOU ASSERTED:

When two "streams of faith" offer contradictory assertions of Truth, at most one of them is right, and at least one of them is wrong.

I think your inference that one side is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT making the other side ABSOLUTELY WRONG -- leaves out several viable options resulting from the human-side of the equation:

(a) There may be common ground of understanding in matters of faith in practice-- meaning....
--BOTH SIDES MAY BE AT LEAST PARTIALLY RIGHT--

(b)There may be differences between the sides where one is RIGHT and the other is WRONG... and its not a mutually exclusive possibility---
That the opposite posture co-exists on other subjects or assertions ----

IN OTHER WORDS -- BOTH MAY BE PARTIALLY IN ERROR..

And the moon may be made of 7-cheese nacho dip....
its still cheese through and through--but more flavors and textures than we first perceived...

************

Which begs the first remaining question:

What is the standard of measurement / comparison?? What is the ultimate and final test of veracity and error --- in matters of faith and practice?

When men or groups gather to make a doctrinal statement or "affirm" an event -- by what standard do they measure.... and to what standard are they themselves held??

I once learned that the very word "canon" (of Scripture) means... MEASURING ROD...

Men make errors, and have been deceived or misled--

Groups of men -- even prayerful and careful ones.... fall into the human phenomena known as "group-think" -- and though they agree among themselves-- they may still be found in (corporate} error.

The rhetorical question in Galatians 3 "who has beguiled you" --

... the letter tells us that the Galatian church is being corrected for blending the thoughts and opinions of (other religious) men with the clearly revealed Word of God.

So there has to be a standard by which we measure our words and deeds -- even the reporting of events that appear to be divine operation or intervention. A "standard" must be uniform and objective -- it cannot be a true standard if it's very basis is subjective

*************

LAST QUESTION:

The 1 Tim 3:15 phrase you cited tells us the church is the "household" of God ---

We appear to agree on one point...

...this business of "Marian Apparitions" apparently seems arrant(sic) nonsense. Fine ... but we already knew that, didn't we?

So then I must ask-- why would the church as "pillar and ground" --issue a formal endorsement of "errant nonsense"??

Does the formal affirmation make the "nonsense" holy??

---Or--

Is it just possible, in chasing all these 'apparitions' that we have digressed from the wisdom of God's principles, precepts and proclamation given in New Testament life and practice....

Just askin'

**********

I know indeed that even protestants /evangelicals have "missed it" more than once in church history--glad to admit that-- I've never seen a flawless man or group of men... from any community of faith.

But I also have walked with those who preach, and serve, and act, and sincerely do all they can for the cause of Christ...
Yet remain determined to keep learning--
--To remain teachable and correctable every step of the way.

I think a teachable spirit -- for a man... or a community of faith.... remains a good thing. JMHO.... OK, then A.B. ....

Thanks for hearing me out.... absurd or not.

Merry Christmas--

With all the blessings Christ purchased for us...

ENJOY THE HOLIDAYS

[ArrogantBustard]

We appear to agree on one point...

...this business of "Marian Apparitions" apparently seems arrant(sic) nonsense. Fine ... but we already knew that, didn't we?

That, sir, may be the most blatant example of profoundly INACCURATE out of context quoting I have seen on this forum, ever. I expect that sort of garbage from Barack 0bama. I expect it from Dan Rather. I do not expect it from FReepers. Your behaviour is disgraceful.

I wrote:

"Clearly. From your POV, this business of "Marian Apparitions" apparently seems arrant nonsense.

You CHOSE to leave off the part which I have underlined and bolded, and which clearly indicate that I do NOT subscribe to the belief which I suggest that YOU (but not I) appear to hold.

Unless and until you can deal ACCURATELY with the comments addressed to you, until you can present them without distorting and completely reversing their meaning, I have nothing further to say to you. Moreover, you have nothing to say to me, as I cannot trust anything you say to be correct.