Fatima, the work of satan?

[hoosierdaddy]

Can you find the scripture reference and post it, that says you only need the bible and nothing else? Where’s that found in the bible???

Jennifer

bang…head…hard…on…wall.

I am so tired of seeing this. Do a search and you will see where this has been addressed many times.

Can you find the Scripture which tells us that we need Catholic Tradition (Edited by Moderator) in place of the clear teaching and pure Word of God (that being the Bible)? Can you find the verse that tells us we need the Pope to declare what we believe (edited by Moderator)? Can you find the verse that tells us not to study the Word of God (the Bible) ourselves? Answer to all three questions: nope.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Can you find the scripture reference and post it, that says you only need the bible and nothing else? Where’s that found in the bible???

Jennifer

Jennifer,
My point was to reference post 778, I am not getting sidetracked by posting 10 verses that help support SS, we’ll leave that to the SS thread.

PS its cold up here today isn’t it?

 

[NotWorthy]

Doc,
My soul is in no jeopardy; I know the Way the Truth and the Life.
I do what the word of God tells me to.
If their is no clear dividing line between good and bad or dark and light I’ll reject it based on scripture.

Acts 17:11 tells us to search scripture daily to confirm what your taught…

Is that digging to deep?

This is an interesting post. For Acts tells us to search the OT Scriptures to confirm what the Apostles taught.

Yet, when Catholics use the OT Scriptures to show that in the David Kingdom, the mother of the king is the queen, and we use that to proclaim Mary as the Queen of Heaven, which is the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom, we are creating “Traditions of Men”.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Jennifer,
My point was to reference post 778, I am not getting sidetracked by posting 10 verses that help support SS, we’ll leave that to the SS thread.

PS its cold up here today isn’t it?

I understand what you were referring to, but whenever we Catholics quote scripture you just say we don’t understand. It’s not WE who are lacking knowledge, it’s you, who are rejecting the full teaching of the Church and Her 2000 years of understanding scripture.

PS, It IS winter, you know.

Jennifer

 

[myfavoritmartin]

This is an interesting post. For Acts tells us to search the OT Scriptures to confirm what the Apostles taught.

Yet, when Catholics use the OT Scriptures to show that in the David Kingdom, the mother of the king is the queen, and we use that to proclaim Mary as the Queen of Heaven, which is the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom, we are creating “Traditions of Men”.

John,
I stated this as proof of proper conduct… Search the Scriptures.
And amen you too should do this…

Yet, when Evangelics use the ECF’s to show that in the 1st and 2nd century many fathers didn’t believe all the same doctrine as what the RCC now promotes we are taking things out of context…
^^^^
See what I did there John?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I understand what you were referring to, but whenever we Catholics quote scripture you just say we don’t understand. It’s not WE who are lacking knowledge, it’s you, who are rejecting the full teaching of the Church and Her 2000 years of understanding scripture.

PS, It IS winter, you know.

Jennifer

2000? ECF’s had many different understanding in the first few hundred years… at best I’ll give you 1650 years. Time doesn’t necessitate truth.

 

[MrS]

Ok, so if myfav says:

"Yet, when Evangelics use the ECF’s to show that in the 1st and 2nd century many fathers didn’t believe all the same doctrine as what the RCC now promotes we are taking things out of context…"

let’s try to answer it this way, with an analogy.

There were many many writings being passed around in the early Church. Some even claimed to have come from some of the human authors of the NT. The numbers tell us that most were right, some were wrong. But because some were wrong, we must not discredit the entire canon.

Instead, the ECF studied them all… for over 300 years.
Snap decisions were not made. And after careful study, all the data was presented through Church councils… humans…some who were right, some were wrong.

But by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, The Catholic Church declared a canon (and reinterated it at Trent in answer to the objections of reformers).

You have choosen to either accept that whole canon… or to reject parts of it. What you have is true… but only partly true. Bluntly, Satan stole the rest from you and planted the seeds of confusion.

Your objections to the ECF is noted. Some were right, some were wrong. I guess that is why there are a bunch of them… to talk, to decide, to reason, to question… and then to come to a decision. Like determining which early writings were true or not.

Next in line is you and me… accept the decison, or walk away and start a faith community that will only temporarily satisfy your personal beliefs.

Sad/

Fatima, back to the topic, is an approved apparation site of the Church… no more, no less. It is deemed worthy of belief… but we are not obligated to believe.

The work of Satan with regards to Fatima (IMHO) is to make one doubt either that it is real, or that it has any relevance in our lives.

If one lets Satan make those choices (as I believe he did for the reformers), one is in for sad times.

 

[Jennifer_J]

2000? ECF’s had many different understanding in the first few hundred years… at best I’ll give you 1650 years. Time doesn’t necessitate truth.

Yes and as MrS said, over time various counsils met and discussed and through the Holy Spirit figured out what teachings actually met the test of scripture (gasp) and Tradition and what didn’t. Time may not necessitate truth, but the Holy Spirit guiding the Pope and counsils and the consistancy of what the Church has OFFICIALLY taught for over 2000 years certainly merits you to not dismiss Her teachings out of hand–either because you don’t understand or won’t understand.

God bless,
Jennifer

 

[francesco920]

Using your reasoning above, you believe that Mary is a fourth member of the Trinity. Guess what…we Protestants do not worship Mary either so what is your problem with us?

No Catholic believes that Mary is a fourth member of the Trinity.

Where does the Bible say that one must accept the Trinity before they are a Christian? I believe they should believe that, but it doesn’t say so. What IS required is to believe that Jesus is God’s Son.

This is the problem with sola Scriptura. Sure, it doesn’t say explicitly in the Bible that the Trinity is true, but the First Council of Nicaea and Sacred Tradition do.

Regarding Mary being a “co-redemptrix” here is something to check out. biblelight.net/medtrix.htm

Right at that site it says this:

By the titles of Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, the Roman Catholic Church means that salvation for everyone would be obtained through Mary, and not directly from Jesus Christ. While this is in fact already taught by the Catholic Church, and has been for many years, it is not yet formally defined as binding dogma, though some Catholics feel it has already achieved that status. Here are examples of this teaching, the first two are papal encyclicals:

1. If in all this series of Mysteries, Venerable Brethren, are developed the counsels of God in regard to us – “counsels of wisdom and of tenderness” (St. Bernard) – not less apparent is the greatness of the benefits for which we are debtors to the Virgin Mother. No man can meditate upon these without feeling a new awakening in his heart of confidence that he will certainly obtain through Mary the fullness of the mercies of God. And to this end vocal prayer chimes well with the Mysteries. First, as is meet and right, comes the Lord’s Prayer, addressed to Our Father in Heaven: and having, with the elect petitions dictated by Our Divine Master, called upon the Father, from the throne of His Majesty we turn our prayerful voices to Mary. Thus is confirmed that law of merciful meditation of which We have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: “Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us.”

I don’t understand the .

By “co-redemptrix” what it meant by this is that Mary, by consenting to be the Mother of Jesus, played a role in God’s plan for our redemption. I don’t see what is so horrifying by this.

But don’t take my word for it; here is an excerpt from the petition submitted to the Pope:

When the Church invokes Mary under the title, “Coredemptrix”, she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: “We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb.10:10).
And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary’s intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, “also a contribution to the Redemption of us all” (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the “Coredemptrix.”
It is important to note that the prefix “co” in the title Coredemptrix does not mean “equal to” but rather “with”, coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary’s unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.

Understand?

 

[Eireann]

Regarding Mary being a “co-redemptrix” here is something to check out. biblelight.net/medtrix.htm

Anti-catholic website above, after some of the stuff I read on it shall we take seriously anything it writes ?

Co-redemptrix merely means **cooperator, **Mary cooperated with Gods plan when she said “be it done unto me according to thy word”.

Are you saying Mary didn’t cooperate with the plan of God ?

Originally Posted by hoosierdaddy
I don’t think it’s a matter of us misunderstanding it.

As for purgatory, even if it does exist, there is nobody suffering there as it is not a place of punishment as per Catholic doctrine (or at least what I’ve heard on here).

So before Christ died, where did the souls of those who died before the Saviour dwell ?

Can’t be Heaven, it hadn’t been opened, can’t be hell, for out of it there is no redemption, where ?

 

[Eireann]

I don’t think it’s a matter of us misunderstanding it.

As for purgatory, even if it does exist, there is nobody suffering there as it is not a place of punishment as per Catholic doctrine (or at least what I’ve heard on here).

So before Christ died, where did the souls of those who died before the Saviour dwell ?

Can’t be Heaven, it hadn’t been opened, can’t be hell, for out of it there is no redemption, where ?

 

[Eireann]

Acts 17:11 tells us to search scripture daily to confirm what your taught…

Is that digging to deep?

And where would you have searched before the Bible was compiled ?

 

[Church_Militant]

Using your reasoning above, you believe that Mary is a fourth member of the Trinity. Guess what…we Protestants do not worship Mary either so what is your problem with us?:

Loaded question that this whole site is about answering.

Where does the Bible say that one must accept the Trinity before they are a Christian? I believe they should believe that, but it doesn’t say so. What IS required is to believe that Jesus is God’s Son.

That doesn’t make sense because Our Lord plainly stated that he and the Father were one.

Regarding Mary being a “co-redemptrix” here is something to check out. biblelight.net/medtrix.htm

Brian, that’s an SDA anti-Catholic site and contains so little truth that it’s unworthy of you or any honest believer to use it as a source.

Heck, they even teach that Jesus and Michael the archangel are one and the same and have many times set a date for the return of the Lord.
Pax tecum,

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Using your reasoning above, you believe that Mary is a fourth member of the Trinity. Guess what…we Protestants do not worship Mary either so what is your problem with us?

Where does the Bible say that one must accept the Trinity before they are a Christian? I believe they should believe that, but it doesn’t say so. What IS required is to believe that Jesus is God’s Son.

Regarding Mary being a “co-redemptrix” here is something to check out. biblelight.net/medtrix.htm

hoosierdaddy, you read your “replies” before you send off into the great beyond, don’t you?

Tell me you nod sometimes, I need reassurance that you really aren’t baiting us Catholics and accusing us of uncharitable behavior.

Look at your first paragraph above. Forget the non sequitor, look at the highlighted sentence. No one here has a “problem” with Protestants. The OP accused Catholics of believing Marian apparitions, especially Fatima, and being taken in by Satan who is appearing as “an angel of light.”

The original poster, myfavoritemartin, had to apologize for misquoting one of the visions to support his OP. He then apologized for attributing THAT bogus translation to the current pope, Benedict XVI.

In the course of his meandering argument, all sorts of bizarre claims were brought in to “test” a vision, find “proof” in scripture, “discern” whether Jesus was preached as “comming in the flesh.”

The usual off-target, off-subject attacks which had nothing to do with the OP except to get attention away from all the Catholic questions to those (such as yourself) who seem to be on some mission to get those fallen Catholics who robotically worship statues and idols back into “the Word of God” (as interpreted by whomever is posting at the moment).

Now, as proof of your “ironclad” argument, you link an anti-Catholic website which misquotes, takes out of context and brooks no contrary view (unlike Catholic Forums, hoosierdaddy). That is scandalous.

You are falling into your old ways.

If you have a problem with “something Catholic” then ask it. There is enough resources out there (on the web and elsewhere) which is DIRECT Catholic teaching on ANY doctrine or dogma you may disagree with.

Attack OUR words, not some bogus personal-interpreter-of-the-Word-of-God’s version.

When confronted with the EXACT words of the Fatima visions, isn’t it interesting how all non-Catholic posters moved on to some other “issue.”

(Nota Bene: the use of parentheses is for purposes of irony and do not necessarily indicate direct quotations from any poster unless said poster’s words are too good not to use for illustrations of hypocrisy and muddledness)

Pax Christi

 

[myfavoritmartin]

And where would you have searched before the Bible was compiled ?

I’d have went to church at a friends house! where they had letters epistles and copies of the gospels… if it was 100 ad or before I’d have tried to be with one of the apostles or disciples.

But I digress this is a fatima thread…

 

[NotWorthy]

John,
I stated this as proof of proper conduct… Search the Scriptures.
And amen you too should do this…

Yet, when Evangelics use the ECF’s to show that in the 1st and 2nd century many fathers didn’t believe all the same doctrine as what the RCC now promotes we are taking things out of context…
^^^^
See what I did there John?

Ah, good point. And what happens when they bring something up that is against Catholic teaching. Often times they are corrected by others. Sadly, this is often not included in your study guides.

I saw where you posted a guy from Syria (?) who taught about the Rapture and you called him an ECF. I haven’t seen any other writings by him, and would hesitate to call him an Early Church Father, but rather an early church writer.

Big difference.

As usual, you are free to point out the error of my ways (but don’t forget, you have a 5000 character limit… ).

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I’d have went to church at a friends house! where they had letters epistles and copies of the gospels… if it was 100 ad or before I’d have tried to be with one of the apostles or disciples.

But I digress this is a fatima thread…

And if you were in Corinth, you would only eat at the ekklesia if you brought your own food.

At Colossae, you might have heard the Protoevangelim of James, or the Gospel of Joseph, or letters from Hermas or other ‘Apostles.’

But pray you weren’t at one of those seven churches listed in Revelation!

 

[LilyM]

And if you were in Corinth, you would only eat at the ekklesia if you brought your own food.

At Colossae, you might have heard the Protoevangelim of James, or the Gospel of Joseph, or letters from Hermas or other ‘Apostles.’

But pray you weren’t at one of those seven churches listed in Revelation!

And if you were at Alexandria as your mass readings you certainly would have heard the Letter of Clement (yes, Saint Clement, the third Pope after Peter) to the Alexandrians!!!

Remember the Canon of the New Testament wasn’t set for hundreds of years - you would have heard loads of other writings and probably (depending on where and what time you were) NOT heard some of the Canonical Gospels or Epistles.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

And if you were in Corinth, you would only eat at the ekklesia if you brought your own food.

At Colossae, you might have heard the Protoevangelim of James, or the Gospel of Joseph, or letters from Hermas or other ‘Apostles.’

But pray you weren’t at one of those seven churches listed in Revelation!

We are all in those! its called revelation not history!

I use chapter 2 and 3 of Rev. to constantly remind me to be sure I am following the hot church, not the luke warm one…
It is a message for even now my friend.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

We are all in those! its called revelation not history!

I use chapter 2 and 3 of Rev. to constantly remind me to be sure I am following the hot church, not the luke warm one…
It is a message for even now my friend.

Why pick and choose Revelation 2 and 3 and not any other scripture which addresses who is to lead the Church after the Resurrection and Pentacost??

Oh yeah, that would mean the Catholic Church.