M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
- Status
W
Wildgraywolf
Guest
Okay, how about a credible source… Do you actually have a copy of his book or did you read the Wikipedia article?
E
Eden
Guest
70,000 people witnessed the miracle. You think all 70,000 of them were there because they* believ*ed a miracle was going to happen?
We have at least one account from someone for whom it was in his best interest to disprove what was happening at Fatima.
And then the Miracle began. We recount here the testimony of a reporter who cannot possibly be accused of partiality in this matter and for a good reason! We refer to Avelino de Almeida, the chief editor of O Seculo, the large “liberal” anticlerical and Masonic daily newspaper of Lisbon. He writes:
From the road, where the carriages were crowded together and where hundreds of persons had stayed for want of sufficient courage to advance across the muddy ground, we saw the huge crowd turn towards the sun which appeared at its zenith, clear of the clouds. It resembled a disc of silver, and it was possible to stare at it without the least discomfort. It did not burn the eyes. It did not blind. We would say that it produced an eclipse. Then a tremendous cry rang out, and the crowd nearest us were heard to shout: “Miracle! Miracle! … Marvel! … Marvel!” Before the dazzled eyes of the people, whose attitude transported us to biblical times, and who, dumbfounded, heads uncovered, contemplated the blue of the sky,the sun trembled, it made strange and abrupt movements, outside of all cosmic laws, “the sun danced”, according to the typical expression of the peasants …7
What purpose would it serve him to say he saw the “Miracle of the Sun”? Why would he take the abuse that later followed for verifying something did happen at Fatima?
Attacked violently by all the anticlerical press, Avelino de Almeida renewed his testimony, fifteen days later, in his review,* Ilustração Portuguesa*. This time he illustrated his account with a dozen photographs of the huge ecstatic crowd, and repeated as a refrain throughout his article: “I saw … I saw … I saw.” And he concluded fortuitously: "Miracle, as the people shouted? Natural phenomenon, as the experts say? For the moment, that does not concern me, I am only saying what I saw… The rest is a matter for Science and the Church."
What purpose would it serve him to say he saw the “Miracle of the Sun”? Why would he take the abuse that later followed for verifying something did happen at Fatima?
Attacked violently by all the anticlerical press, Avelino de Almeida renewed his testimony, fifteen days later, in his review,* Ilustração Portuguesa*. This time he illustrated his account with a dozen photographs of the huge ecstatic crowd, and repeated as a refrain throughout his article: “I saw … I saw … I saw.” And he concluded fortuitously: "Miracle, as the people shouted? Natural phenomenon, as the experts say? For the moment, that does not concern me, I am only saying what I saw… The rest is a matter for Science and the Church."
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
wikipedia
I liked their take and went with it.
H
havemercy
Guest
You naively ignore the fact that the Bible you read from (whatever is left of the Bible, that you read from, I should say) on Sundays during your church’s worship service is a part of Catholic Christian Tradition. Why do you read it, quote it, or even believe in it? How is such thought tenable? By denying Sacred Tradition, you’re pulling the carpet from under your feet, and smashing your only compass under your own heel.
Sigh…
J
JaneFrances
Guest
With all due respect, I would assert that once the Blessed Virgin Mary appears before a Protestant, he or she would almost certainly cease to be Protestant. It think that’s part of the phenomenal conversion expereince that the Lord intends when he allows such apparitions.
And while I can’t think of any current Protestants who would attest to or who have recorded Marian apparitions, I can think of several times when I have heard of Protestants, Atheists, Agnostics, Non-Christians, who have been drawn to the Church by certain apparitions–whether they were first hand witnesses or not.
E
Eden
Guest
One of the central messages of the Fatima apparitions was a call for world peace. Are you saying world peace is a desire of satan?wikipedia
D
DeFide
Guest
Using Scripture without Sacred Tradition and the Church established by Christ always yields a multiplicity of contradictory answers among Protestants and therefore must be invalid.
It’s like rolling dice to solve an arithmetic problem. After a getting conflicting answers on the same problem a few times, it should become abundantly clear that there’s something wrong with the method.
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
Is that your problem? You associate apparitions with ghosts? A person who dies in the grace of God and stands in His presence in heaven is not a ghost. They are more alive than we are, and are holy, since they stand in His presence. They are not to be feared. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and they want nothing more than for us to join them in Heaven!
Plus, remember what Jesus said, “I am the Resurrection and the Life; whoever believes in me, een when he dies, whill live, and whoever believes in me, even though he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
Why is an apparition not miraculous? Why were plauges of Egypt considered miraculous? The last plague was the death of the first born son. In those days, chidren died all the time. Why is that considred a miracle?
R
Ruthie
Guest
My favorite martin sarcastically said,
“Catholics are the only and true church why would apparitions of Mary show up to protestants since they are anethema.”
Sounds like you are one of those Protestants who are so hung up on the anathemas in Trent that they ignore *current *Church teachings, which tell us that Protestants are our “separated brethren.”
Anathema is no longer used as a punishment. Even back in the days of Trent, it was rarely used. Anathema required a ceremony, which only the Pope could do, and he just wouldn’t have had time to anathemize every Protestant.
*
Earlier, there was discussion of the “golden rule.” In Mt 19:19b and Mt 22:39b, Jesus said, **** “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
The same wording appears in Leviticus 19:18.
*
Someone asked for Biblical evidence for angels having conversations with people. A good example of that may be found in Gen 19:1-22.
*
I have come to think that Protestants are afraid of anything to do with Mary, because she is such a Catholic emblem. Just like pubescent kids are afraid to hold their friends’ hands, lest someone accuse them of being “gay.”
For the same reason, some Protestants dismiss Marian apparitions as being the work of the devil. After all, if the apparitions are real, they might have to rethink their lack of reverence to Mary. If they’re of the devil, then Catholicism must be a false religion.
I’m a convert from Protestantism, who will shortly be in full communion with the Church!
“Catholics are the only and true church why would apparitions of Mary show up to protestants since they are anethema.”
Sounds like you are one of those Protestants who are so hung up on the anathemas in Trent that they ignore *current *Church teachings, which tell us that Protestants are our “separated brethren.”
Anathema is no longer used as a punishment. Even back in the days of Trent, it was rarely used. Anathema required a ceremony, which only the Pope could do, and he just wouldn’t have had time to anathemize every Protestant.
*
Earlier, there was discussion of the “golden rule.” In Mt 19:19b and Mt 22:39b, Jesus said, **** “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
The same wording appears in Leviticus 19:18.
*
Someone asked for Biblical evidence for angels having conversations with people. A good example of that may be found in Gen 19:1-22.
*
I have come to think that Protestants are afraid of anything to do with Mary, because she is such a Catholic emblem. Just like pubescent kids are afraid to hold their friends’ hands, lest someone accuse them of being “gay.”
For the same reason, some Protestants dismiss Marian apparitions as being the work of the devil. After all, if the apparitions are real, they might have to rethink their lack of reverence to Mary. If they’re of the devil, then Catholicism must be a false religion.
I’m a convert from Protestantism, who will shortly be in full communion with the Church!
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Though I will admit That Catholic monks were instrumental in preserving scripture I will in no way ever consider the spirit guided gospels,letters,epistles to be a tradition of the Catholic church.
The word tells us to take all things taught and check the word to see that its true.
I’ll take the word of god over the word of man any day, even your infallible pope.
E
Eden
Guest
Welcome home!
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
A Jehovah’s Witness would say,
*God’s word tells us over and over again who Jesus is, God’s greatest creation, but certainly NOT God. Jehovah’s Witnesses have a firm understanding of Jesus. We actually based on Scripture rather than on the man-made tradition of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, and we look at Jesus in a more accurate light than Protestants.
Italics signify that this is not my opinion.
D
DeFide
Guest
That’s the problem: your personal interpretation of scripture is the word of man, not God, unless you think you have the gift of infallibility.
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html
E
Eden
Guest
The main reason why Protestants cannot accept approved Marian apparitions is that they contradict so much of Protestant theology - that Mary was not assumed into heaven and that she was not ever-virgin are two problematic Protestant teachings that would preclude them from believing.
Since not everything about apparitions can be explained away as delusions, psychosis or fraud, the last resort for a Protestant to hang on to their teachings about Mary is to say that even approved apparitions of Mary are from the devil.
The miracle of the tilma from Guadeloupe is another miracle unexplained by science:
www.marys-touch.com/Mother/Ch17.htm
“The tilma, which holds the miraculous painting upon its poor and loosely knit material, measures four feet wide and nearly seven feet long, its folds spread out full so as to reveal, unwrinkled, the pictographic design. Now hanging over the altar of its third shrine, and behind a glass covering, the painting for its first 116 years had no such protection. Uncovered, it had been left exposed to the corrosive force of the salty Mexican climate and to the fumes from votive candles burning constantly beneath it. However, it did not corrode. Nor has it dimmed. The experts who have studied its perfect blendings marvel that after four and a half centuries it retains a pristine luster and retains this on a fabric that cannot naturally take paint and should itself have long ago crumbled to dust. Skeptics who are not allowed by a dogma of their own to consider the phenomenon a miracle must go away without an explanation.”
Since not everything about apparitions can be explained away as delusions, psychosis or fraud, the last resort for a Protestant to hang on to their teachings about Mary is to say that even approved apparitions of Mary are from the devil.
The miracle of the tilma from Guadeloupe is another miracle unexplained by science:
www.marys-touch.com/Mother/Ch17.htm
“The tilma, which holds the miraculous painting upon its poor and loosely knit material, measures four feet wide and nearly seven feet long, its folds spread out full so as to reveal, unwrinkled, the pictographic design. Now hanging over the altar of its third shrine, and behind a glass covering, the painting for its first 116 years had no such protection. Uncovered, it had been left exposed to the corrosive force of the salty Mexican climate and to the fumes from votive candles burning constantly beneath it. However, it did not corrode. Nor has it dimmed. The experts who have studied its perfect blendings marvel that after four and a half centuries it retains a pristine luster and retains this on a fabric that cannot naturally take paint and should itself have long ago crumbled to dust. Skeptics who are not allowed by a dogma of their own to consider the phenomenon a miracle must go away without an explanation.”
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
Why not? Where in the Bible did Jesus command his apostles to write down the Gospels, or letters? Where does Paul command the churches that his letters were divinely inspired by God and that they should be preservered for all generations? Why even have a Bible at all, if Christ didn’t command us to have one?
How do we know that the books in the Bible are inspired? Why is the Gospel of Thomas not considered inspired but 3 John is? Why did some Christians reject the book of Hebrews and Revelation?
Check the Old Testament? Hmm. Old Testament doesn’t seem to mention Jesus, so I guess He’s not true. Remember, when Paul wrote to the Churches, there was no New Testament, and there’s no reason to believe that Paul ever knew that there would be a New Testament. So he wasn’t telling them to check the New Testament. Besides, he said to hold fast to whatever they were taught, whether by word of mouth or doctrine. (2 Thess 2:15.)
Do you think that the Church of Thessalonia had arguements like,
A: Paul told us we should do X during our Sunday worship.
B: Did Paul write that down?
A No, he just told us.
B It doesn’t count unless he wrote it If he really did tell you that, tell him to write it down. We won’t believe it or obey it unless he writes it down first.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
I’m a little behind in this thread. . .Just catching up. . .Perhaps some of this has already been covered. . .Forgive my reiteration, in that event.
You are making an inference about the function of the bowls and the elders that has no Biblical basis at all. Your distinction of the prayers of the saints coming “direct from the saints” is exactly the opposite of what is going on. . .
Revelation is richly laced in metaphor and meaning and this Biblical concept of offering by the use of “bowls” is deeply rooted in Old Testament imagery that we see in passages such as Ex.24:6 and Ex. 25:29.
In Revelation, when we see this reference to the elders offering bowls, it is a very direct and obvious allusion to this Old Testament concept.
It does NOT, as you would contend, mean that the saints are passing around some prodigal prayer bowls and dropping in their “offerings” while the 24 elders act as some sort of heavenly bowl ushers.
Your distinction is entirely un-Biblical and shows a great lack of regard for Biblical tradition in an effort to disprove or somehow discredit an entirely Biblical concept with which you, apparently, are not familiar.
The elders are indeed offering the bowls “on behalf” of the saints. However, the fact that they are acting in an important intercessory role is in direct line with the Catholic teaching of the intercession of the Communion of Saints. That’s the whole point!
Mum of Five says:
For someone who demands Biblical precedent and proof for all her beliefs, I really can not believe that this is her interpretation of this passage.
You are making an inference about the function of the bowls and the elders that has no Biblical basis at all. Your distinction of the prayers of the saints coming “direct from the saints” is exactly the opposite of what is going on. . .
Revelation is richly laced in metaphor and meaning and this Biblical concept of offering by the use of “bowls” is deeply rooted in Old Testament imagery that we see in passages such as Ex.24:6 and Ex. 25:29.
In Revelation, when we see this reference to the elders offering bowls, it is a very direct and obvious allusion to this Old Testament concept.
It does NOT, as you would contend, mean that the saints are passing around some prodigal prayer bowls and dropping in their “offerings” while the 24 elders act as some sort of heavenly bowl ushers.
Your distinction is entirely un-Biblical and shows a great lack of regard for Biblical tradition in an effort to disprove or somehow discredit an entirely Biblical concept with which you, apparently, are not familiar.
The elders are indeed offering the bowls “on behalf” of the saints. However, the fact that they are acting in an important intercessory role is in direct line with the Catholic teaching of the intercession of the Communion of Saints. That’s the whole point!
A
Alfie
Guest
We are fruitful and multiplied.
In Genesis God also told the man and the woman to have dominion over the earth. I would have to say that having control over how many children a married couple personally desire is part of that dominion. When God was telling Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply he was more than likely giving them a lecture on the “birds and the bees”.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Jesus tells us, “. . .God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob’? He is the God of the living, not of the dead” (Matt. 22:32). Catholics believe that those who have gone before us in the faith, in fellowship with Christ, as part of his Body, the Church are indeed not dead, but alive. Their life is everlasting. This is the gift of the Cross and Resurrection! It is a fundamental doctrine of faith that when we die in Christ, we pass from death into the newness of life. Death no longer has dominion over us. The first letter of John tells us: “If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:7). Paul’s letters especially make clear how the Church saw the “saints” as being in communion with each other through Christ—whether living or dead (or his preferred term “asleep”). Ephesians 2:19 tells us that we are “fellow citizens of the saints and members of the household of God.” This includes the Church here on earth and those who have gone before us in faith. We are fellows—that is, we have fellowship with the saints. We are in the same family of God. We “are the body of Christ. Every one of [us] is a member of it” (1 Cor. 12:27). We are told that not even death can separate us from the love of Christ, our Lord (Rom. 8:25-39). His love is what makes us one Body by grace.
So, if we are in communion with the saints. . .if we are told in Scripture that we are one body. . .if we share in the newness of life (not death). . .if we are in fellowship and are members of the same family of God, how are we supposed to behave towards each other? Scripture is very clear: We, the Church, those who live in Christ, are to offer “petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings. . .for all men” (1 Tim. 2:1). Scripture is explicit that “there may be no dissention in the body, but all the members may be concerned for one another” (1 Cor. 12:25-27) We are instructed to “At every opportunity pray in the Spirit, using prayers and petitions of every sort. Pray constantly and attentively for all in the holy company” (Eph. 6:18). Are not the saints in heaven in the holy company? I can’t find anywhere in Scripture that would exclude the saints in heaven (can you?—which should be your onus since it is your criteria). In fact, we are told that the “fervent petition of a holy man is powerful indeed” (James 5:16). Who is more holy than our brothers and sisters in full communion with God in heaven? If we are in fellowship with them through Christ, why can’t we ask for their prayers, too?
AND SINCE YOU NEED BIBLICAL PROOF TEXTING FOR APPARITIONS AND INTERCESSION:
The gospel of Matthew reports that “Many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection they came forth from their tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many” (Matt. 27:53). What were they doing running around Jerusalem? How did God use this contact between the living and the raised? Scripture tells us “We know that God makes all things work together for the good of those who have been called according to his decree” (Rom. 8:28).
If God were to allow “many bodies of the saints” to appear to others for His greater glory and according to his will, why is so hard for some to believe that He would send his Mother?
J
JaneFrances
Guest
The English word we use “to pray” or “prayer” comes from a Latin word “precari” which translates into a Middle English word of French derivation “preier” or simply “pray” (originating before the 13th century). In Latin and the Latin derivatives, there is no distinction in the word “pray” to mean directly to God alone and to others. Okay, so that’s the linguistic derivation. . .
“To pray” has a broad definition in its original Middle English language to mean “to ask” or “to request.” This original broad meaning of the word “pray” is not exclusively spiritual. In the 16th century, during the Protestant Reformation, the word “to pray” began to take on a more restrictive definition to mean “to pray to God.” We know this because we still have indications of the broader usage in our language even today. One is found in the British expression, “prithee” which is contraction of the expression “ I pray thee” (as in, “prithee, fetch the book”). If some one has something to say to someone, we know that a common request for that information is “pray, tell.”
Even our modern court documents often point to the broader sense of the word as in “Defendant A prays the court will. . .” The idea of “praying” to another person in these cases, of course, never entails giving Godly worship to them. This is the Catholic notion of “praying” to Mary or the saints. English speaking Catholics of the 16th century and since simply haven’t excluded the broader usage of the word “pray” to mean “ask.”
The exclusive meaning of “to pray” referring to prayer to God only became the tradition of the English speaking Protestants in speaking “the King’s English” especially with respect to beliefs espoused by the Protestant trend. The meanings of “praying” to God and praying to Mary or the saints (or to each other or to a court, for that matter) are very, very different.
SO, with that said. . .Catholics do “pray” to Mary and the saints, just as we “pray” to each other when we have “prayer to God” requests. We do not give Mary or the saints or each other Divine worship. Prayer ultimately, and linguistically, is a type of communication in the form of a request. There are certain communications that are only proper to give to God. Worship is one. In fact, we have a commandment that tells us “I, the Lord, am your God. . .You shall not have other gods besides me. . .you shall not bow down before them [other gods] or worship them” (Ex. 20:2-5). This is a very clear doctrinal teaching on how we are to communicate only with God. In these same ten commandments, however, we are told to “Honor your father and your mother.” We know that we are to “honor” God also, of course. However, the ways in which we “honor” our parents are far inferior to the ways in which we “honor” God. Prayers are the same. We ask, request, or pray to Mary and the saints in ways that are separate and FAR inferior to the “prayer” we give to God. In fact, we know that it is only through Jesus that our “prayers” are heard. It is not by the power or merit of anyone other than Jesus that we even have the ability to reach the ears of God. However, we know that our prayers for each other are effective and heard by God through Christ, the One Mediator.
- Status