laimed to have an apparation from an angel teaching them to pray in the spring of 1916. They were asked to pray repeatedly by the angel who appeared to them. This is why the Catholics were convinced that they have to pray repeatedly.Posted on 03/24/2015 8:06:07 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Just last Sunday, a local newspaper paper released an article teaching that the praying of the Holy Rosary is Bible-based. In the first two paragraphs, the writer admittedly says that there is no passage in the Bible teaching nor mentioned about the praying of Rosary.
However, in the following paragraphs, the writer justified the praying of the Rosary basing it on the repetition of historical events of some Bible characters (like Gideon as he mentioned) about Israel’s history.
I don’t know if the writer of this article did some research about the origin of rosary and how it was deeply encouraged for Roman Catholics.
Praying of Rosary was encouraged when Lucia Dos Santos and her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Marto claimed to have an apparation from an angel teaching them to pray in the spring of 1916. They were asked to pray repeatedly by the angel who appeared to them. This is why the Catholics were convinced that they have to pray repeatedly.
The flaw however in the story was that, the angel gave two sets of completely different prayers. The angel appeared to the three children three times.
Then after a year, 1917, it was said that Our Lady of Rosary had an apparitions for 7 times. In her second apparition the Our Lady said:
“I wish you to come here the 13th of next month; that you say the Rosary every day, and that you learn to read. In succeding months I will tell you what else I want.” “I would like to ask you to bring us to Heaven“, said Lucy. “Yes, Giacinta and Francis will be among the few, but you must stay here for a long time. Jesus wants to help Himself of you to make Me known and loved. God wishes you to remain in the world for some time because He wants to use you to establish in the world a devotion to my Immaculate Heart. I promise salvation to those who embrace it, and their souls will be loved by God as flowers placed by myself to adorn His throne.” Lucy asked: “Will I stay here alone”?, “Don’t be discouraged , I will not abandon you ever. My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and through it will conduct you to God.”
Now here are the flaws of this apparition. First, the Our Lady is telling the children to teach the people to make her known and be loved. Note that the apparition was initiated not by Jesus, nor an angel, but the very person who wants to be made known. It is like, someone came to you and asked you using the name of your friend to introduce her to other people that you know.
The second flaw, Our Lady promises salvation to those who embrace this command. A completely heretical claim, and totally in contrast to what the Bible is saying. The Bible is very clear in saying that “…whosoever believes in Him (Jesus) will not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).” Only God can give salvation. This is the Biblical truth that cannot be altered, deducted nor added.
Third flaw, Our Lady claims that her immaculate heart will be our refuge and through it will conduct you to God. This is another contradiction to what the Bible is saying. “Come to me all you labor and are heavily burdened and I will give you rest (Matt.11:28)”, “I am the way the truth and the life, NO ONE comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6)”.
The truth is, there is only one mediator between God and man, it is only Jesus Christ (Hebrews chapters 6,7,8,9, and 10)
This is the statement coming from the third apparition:
“In october I will tell you who I am, that which I want, and I will do a miracle that all can see and believe. Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say often this prayer, especially during any sacrifice: “O my Jesus, I offer this for love of Thee, for the conversion of poor sinners, and in reparation for all the sins commited against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.“
The flaw of the third apparition is the claiming of honor which belongs to Jesus Christ, and the idea of co-equality with Jesus. Though she did not claim co-equality, but the fact of showing that people committed sins against her proposes the idea of deity that people needs to be so sorry for not recognizing her. The Bible tells us that there are three persona where we committed sins, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And now, here comes the Mary, an addition to the Holy Trinity.
“You have seen Hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save future souls God wishes to establish in the world the devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If people do what I tell you, many souls will be saved.” Then She said:” If my requests are granted, Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If not, she will scatter her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecution of the Church. The good will be martyed, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be destroyed…But in the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, Russia will be converted, and a certain period of peace will be granted to the world“. “Do you want to learn a prayer?” the vision asked, “Yes we do!” the children responded. “When you recite the Rosary, say at the end of each decade: Oh My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Your Mercy.“
Now let’s look at this additional quotations from the third apparition. This is more like “Our Lady” centered command rather than “Jesus” centered command. Russia will be consecreted to Our Lady of Rosary than instead of Jesus. Notice the number of recitation of the Rosary. At the end of each decade (10), there is only one calling for Jesus help.
This is quoted from the last (6th) apparition
“I am the Lady of the Rosary, I desire here a chapel in my honor to be built, that people continue to recite the Rosary every day. Will the war finish. The war is going to end, and the soldiers will soon return to their homes.” Then Lucy asked: “may I ask you for cures and conversions, will you grant them?”. “Some yes, others no. It is necessary that they ask pardon for their sins, that they don’t offend God our Lord, and that he is already too much offended.” “Do you Want anything else from me?” Lucy asked. “I do not want anything more.“
The flaw of the 6th apparition is that the Lady of the Rosary is asking for a chapel in “HER” honor, and not Jesus’ nor the Father’s honor. We have to note that taking glory which supposed to be for God is a serious sin, this is idolatry.
The apparition is completely directing people in a wrong path. It is completely in contradiction with what the Bible is saying. The Bible warn us about these kinds of apparitions in Galatians 1:8 “But even though we (referring to Paul and his companions) or an angel from heaven, which should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed.” This is a strong warning that we should be careful in believing apparitions especially if it gives another teachings that what the Bible already have taught us.
Just some additional observations concerning the apparition of Our Lady of Rosary. Our Lady appeared “6” times. In Hebrew culture (the Israelite culture), 6 is the imperfect number. A number usually associated with evil things. Thus, the number of the Beast in the Book of Revelations tells us that it is 666.
Another observation is the dates of the apparition. The apparition dates are significantly on the 13th of every month of that year. Even until, Roman Catholics believe that 13th is always associated with evil things like Friday the 13t h bad luck and not placing 13th floor on buildings. Not to mention all the horror movies that happens on Friday the 13th.
Now let me ask you, do you really believe that these apparitions comes from God? These apparition and commands are completely in contrast to what the Bible teaches us. They are “Our Lady of Rosary” centered rather than “God” centered. The apparitions promotes glory and honor for “Our Lady of Rosary” rather than the glory of God. And finally, even culture related things are in contradiction to the apparitions. Not to mention its lack of Apostolicity and Biblical support.
Could it be that people did not know how to read or write?
Hmmmm, not one of them says “mother of God”. Seems your putting words in that aren’t there.
Not good enough!!!!!
(Just kidding....although it would not be good enough for some.)
Hey.. no wait -- that's me? Right?
Hoss
:D
Just like the dates for Easter and Christmas? There is nothing new under the sun.
None of those verses support the concept that Mary is the mother of God.
These verses clearly support the concept that Mary is the mother of God. Why do non-RCC so adamantly deny what is so clearly stated?
The angel of the Lord told Joseph that Mary shall bring forth a son, who shall save his people from their sins; that this was done, to fulfill that which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. This clearly shows that Mary is the mother of God.
Gabriel told Mary that she shall conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus; that He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. The angel further said The Holy Ghost shall come upon her, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow her: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of her shall be called the Son of God. This clearly shows that Mary is the mother of God.
Elisabeth’s womb leaped in her womb when Mary greeted her; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? This clearly shows Elizabeth calling Mary the mother of God.
After Mary gave birth to Jesus in Bethlehem, the angel of the Lord told shepherds that unto them is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. Mary is the mother of this babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, which is Christ the Lord. This clearly shows the angel telling the shepherds that Mary is the mother of Christ the Lord.
It was revealed to Simeon by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, Simeon took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel, and Simeon said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. This clearly shows Simeon saying that he has seen the Lord to Mary his (the Lord’s) mother.
When the wise men come into the house where they found the King of the Jews, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him. This shows that Mary is the mother of the Christ the King.
If you can show me how all these verses do not show that Mary is the mother of God, please do so.
In the context of an Internet thread, why are the words of war being used?
I cannot understand why every day the anti Catholics post a straw man thread and then go to war.
It is simply not Christian.
There are those on this thread whom seem as though they would gleefully light the torches in downtown Salem.
It is not becoming of people for whom on other topis I hold in high regard.
1. Wrong: You're assuming inspiring men to express what God wanted is forcing His creation.
2. You're asserting that God forces His will on people.
2. Wrong. You are asserting that God must force man in order to accomplish His will, and that God's will cannot be accomplished if some men do not choose to obey him. Thus the words of God which He wanted to preserve on earth perished from the earth.
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (Isaiah 46:10)
3. The bottom line is you're statement leads to the conclusion that God doesn't allow men to commit certain sin.
3. Wrong. The bottom line is you're statement leads to the conclusion that God cannot allow men to commit certain sins and still accomplish His will, unless He forces them to obey Him.
My point is that God gave us all scripture.
And just where you get that certainty from? If it is from 2Tim. 3:15, then your must assent to what the writer and His Lord manifestly held Scripture as being, with the Lord referencing the tripartite canon of the Law and the Prophets and the Writings (Wisdom books). There goes all other religions but OT Judaism, while the NT writings were established as conflative (in word, spirit and power) and complimentary to the OT ones, and thus were progressively established as being Scripture.
Now you come 2k years later and want to open the canon to all sorts of things which they rejected. Based upon your judgment and what community?
God never intended for men to have limited access to His words.
God never intended for men to not discern what was of God early on, but have the vast open canon your reasoning leads to. You make a mockery of the judgment of generations of souls which manifested the heavenly qualities and attestation which corresponded to what was written. And instead seem to want us to heed an immoral man who died shooting at others.
Really? Wasn’t James, the brother of Jesus? Now I am really confused. Did Joesph have another wife?
(Yeah, I know it's Lenten season. I know some Catholics & even some mainline Protestants eat fish, but what does this have to do with the price of fish?)
Of course, Jesus talked with His Father! (Are you somehow thinking someone may actually believe He didn't?)
I see your cherry picking and selective editing skills are as good as ever.
SP, at least your comments are good for laughs. :) [Yet another reason I enjoy talking with you]
Did I cite all of 3 Nephi 19 in the BoM? (No).
Did you? (No; you quoted vv. six to eight; 22; & then ignored...or, as you like to put it, "cherry picked" and "selectively edited out" the rest)
(It's always funny to see somebody accuse another of something specific that they turn around & do in the same keyboard breath! :) )
Allow me to remind you of the original context of this discussion: Your comment in #333: The laws of God are not arbitrary. Prayers are to God the Father in the name of Jesus ONLY. So says Jesus Christ, whom will condemn you and cast you out at the last day for praying to anyone but His and our Father in Heaven."
Your point here is that WHO we pray to is a hardfast (nonarbitrary) "law" ... and the "only" target reinforces that ... and then condemnation for anybody departing from that absolute.
Therefore, your citation of selective 3 Nephi 19 portions about praying to the Father are irrelevant.
If I say, Preach to A but not B and we don't disagree about Preaching to A ... but only B ... it's irrelevant to discuss authoritative passages that undergird Preaching to A.
If something is a Law, that law doesn't change.
If something is an absolute, it's not an absolute if exceptions are allowed.
So the issue has never been, "Let's find what the most prominent pattern might be in the Scriptures and agree upon that!" No, the issue is, you claimed something was a spiritual law, an absolute; you claimed "only" status; and you claimed that person would be "condemned" based upon deviating upon that.
Therefore, all anybody has to do is find exceptions...precedents...which disrupt a legalistic notion of a 100 percent "law" reinforced and dismantles your claim to "only" status.
And here it is...
Tell us: Which are we to believe? The Book of Mormon? Or you?
#2 How many times did the "Nephite disciples" either pray DIRECTLY to Jesus or are referenced as praying DIRECTLY to Jesus? (Answer: Five times: V. 18, v. 22, v. 22 again, v. 24, v. 25) And the v. 24 reference was no microwave prayer: his disciples, and behold, they did still continue, without ceasing, to pray unto him
#3 The above shows your absolute claims are broken and cannot be maintained with ANY degree of intellectual honesty.
#4 Finally, even the Mormon jesus directly contradicts your claim in post #333: Your claim? Prayers are to God the Father in the name of Jesus only. So says Jesus Christ, whom will condemn you and cast you out at the last day for praying to anyone but His and our Father in Heaven.
Yet did the Mormon jesus even rebuke or warn these Nephites when they prayed DIRECTLY to him..."No, pray ONLY to the Father!" (NOPE!)
In fact, JUST THE OPPOSITE!
25 And it came to pass that Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.
26 And Jesus said unto them: Pray on; nevertheless they did not cease to pray.
ALL: This is what happens when grassroots Mormons are spoonfed "absolute laws" from their "living prophets" ... yet when faced with direct contradictions from their very own "sacred" standard works, we see evasive actions.
Uhhhh...I guess we gotta narrowly define "prayer" by ejecting the "word" "calling"...(Oh...ya mean 3 Nephi 19:18 actually connects the two words? Uh, oh!)
Uhhhh...Perhaps we should next parse a distinction 'tween a "formal" prayer and an "informal" prayer (Oh...ya mean our leaders never divide prayers into these two categories when they instruct others on it? Oh...ya mean, our leaders NEVER give the "a ok" to pray directly to Jesus even in "informal" prayers? Uh, oh!)
What now? (We can't just let the text speak to us at such facevalue!)
Why do I do what? Pray the Rosary? See my first post on the subject.
You said Paul gives instructions to read the epistle of Laodicea. PAUL wanted everyone to read it. That doesn't mean that God did.
Men removed what parts of that scripture they didn't like, added what they did and called their work "Holy".
What you're saying is that God is helpless and cannot direct man. Your god may be helpless but The God I worship is in control of everything.
Wouldn’t God know the difference.
I do not want to sound like I am mocking anyone, but if you are praying with a true heart won’t God hear you even if it’s directed “down the hall?”
If we are talking Old Testament God, I would think not. But the New Testament God seems a little more forgiving.
Hey -- wasn't he the dude in Johnny Dangerously?
Hoss
No...start these threads. Nothing good comes from it, except to start fights.
It is not a wise thing to do. We should be working to embrace the 90% of what we agree on, not drive wedges in between the few things we disagree on.
Because the normal and natural connotation of mother denotes ontological oneness, making Mary as a goddess begetting a God after her nature.
While Mary gave birth to and mothered the incarnate Christ, she contributed nothing to His Divine nature, and owes her own existence to Christ. Giving her the formal title Mother of God disrespects how the Holy Spirit describes and gives titles to created beings, which works against exalting them as RCs extremely do with Mary, thinking of her "above that which is written," which the Spirit warns against. (1Co. 4:6)
The terms "God-bearer" which some of the ancients used is less misleading, but Caths largley refused to use that in deference to the term "Mother of God," as they seek to exalt her, ascribing things to her which are nowhere ascribed to any created beings, but many parallel the those of Chris t.
What Ratzinger wrote about the title Co-redemptrix” departing to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers applies to is akin to "Mother of God " departing to too great an extent from the language of Scripture
When asked in an interview in 2000 whether the Church would go along with the desire to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, then-Cardinal Ratzinger responded that “the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is, broadly, that what is signified by this is already better expressed in other titles of Mary, while the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (53).
He went on to say that, “Everything comes from Him [Christ], as their Latter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” (God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306
You are a man of honor.
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.