How do I refute this? (about Mary)

[StrawberryJam]

So, what is the bottom line here about Mary anyway? Can anyone sum it up?

 

[StrawberryJam]

You might want to point out to your friend that even APPROVED Marian apparitions are not required to be believed or accepted by the faithful.

That is a great point!

I’m guessing right now, that a vision of Mary is only approved if it fits to the teachings.

And, if I am not mistaken the children liked to inflict pain on themselves?
Could I be mistaken?

 

[steve_b]

Thing is, they allege that the woman in these apparitions isn’t actually Mary, but rather is a demon pretending to be Mary. I’m looking for ways to prove that it’s actually Mary in these apparitions.

Mary in the well known apparitions always points to Jesus. Demons don’t do that.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Mary in the well known apparitions always points to Jesus. Demons don’t do that.

So many “apparitions” for so many years were trusted and later found out to be bogus.

 

[Mike_Dye]

So many “apparitions” for so many years were trusted and later found out to be bogus.

I am sure you are not referring to Church approved apparitions. If you are please name them.

 

[Mannyfit75]

So many “apparitions” for so many years were trusted and later found out to be bogus.

Only few apparitions of Mary are approved by the Catholic Church and they are worthy of devotion. Like the other posters said, private revelation in the Catholic Church is not required.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Only few apparitions of Mary are approved by the Catholic Church and they are worthy of devotion. Like the other posters said, private revelation in the Catholic Church is not required.

Okay.

So, then how long does it take the Church to discover a bogus apparition?

 

[JustaServant]

Well, their first problem is they don’t heed the warning of Our Lord:

“But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.” (Mark 3:29)

These miracles, which the Church has declared to be “supernatural”, were accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit. So those who say they are “demonic” are doing exactly what the Pharisees and scribes did - attributing the work of God to Satan - blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Hopefully they do so in ignorance, but then again…

Well I’ll tell you. when I was across the Tiber I heard many a preacher claim apparitions like Fatima were ‘mass hypnosis’. only a few dared to tread on the ‘demonic’ opinion. Most, like myself, just avoided the subject. And it was the verse above that was the reason. At least the agnostic above isn’t making that argument.
It is a VERY dangerous thing to attribute to the devil, the things of God.

 

[Della]

Have you tried right-clicking and doing something like “Save File As…”?

It seems it’s not compatible, but I know the kind of dreck this is–I’ve read the like before.

I’ve tried that, and been told that “Satan sometimes using a truth mixed in with a lie to lead people astray.” The person I’m discussing this with is convinced that these apparitions are demonic in origin.

And if he thinks the devil isn’t busy everywhere–even within his own faith community, he’s kidding himself. Jesus had Judas, after all. It’s just an excuse to reject Catholic teaching–or rather what he’s been told is Catholic teaching.

My (stupid) response? “Like the Reformation?”

I’ll bet that went over big!

 

[Della]

So, what is the bottom line here about Mary anyway? Can anyone sum it up?

If you are referring to apparitions, I highly recommend Benedict Groeschel’s “A Still Small Voice” in which he outlines the differences between approved and unapproved apparitions, visions, locutions, etc.

Besides, this discussion belongs in another thread. The OP isn’t asking for questions or questioning of approved apparitions of Mary but how to refute fundamentalist opposition to them.

 

[Luke65]

Well I’ll tell you. when I was across the Tiber I heard many a preacher claim apparitions like Fatima were ‘mass hypnosis’. only a few dared to tread on the ‘demonic’ opinion. Most, like myself, just avoided the subject. And it was the verse above that was the reason. At least the agnostic above isn’t making that argument.
It is a VERY dangerous thing to attribute to the devil, the things of God.

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. And might explain why you made your way back.

 

[Dtmccameron]

Why bring up a “tale” without backing it up with any sort of reference to it?
Then add more to it by retelling the “tale” again?
What purpose does this have if it is a tale?

Can’t people offer something substantial here we can digest instead of tales?

Humbug! No faith in an old man’s memory, eh?

Well fine, I got it for ya.

From Angels and Devils by Joan Carroll Cruz.

Pg. 177

Although demons can appear in many frightful disguises, they have also been known to appear in more pleasing and celestial forms, even as the holy Mother of God. One such instance took place during the lifetime of St. Peter Martyr (1205-1252), who was only fifteen when he met St. Dominic and begged to be accepted into the Dominican order.

Known as a celebrated preacher, St. Peter Martyr routinely engaged in disputes with heretics all over northern Italy. In one city, a prominant man had been won to heresy after he had visited a meeting of heretics. During the meeting, a vision of what seemed to be the Blessed Mother encouraged him to join the group. Determined to win back the man to truth, St. Peter went to a meeting of the heretics. When the devil in the guise of the Blessed Mother appeared, the Saint held high a pyx in which he had placed a consecrated Host. After he addressed the false vision with the words, “If you are the Mother of God, adore your Son!” the devil left in dismay, to the astonishment of the heretics, many of whom were converted.

Well, I was pretty close anyway. I must’ve been throwing in the brimstone bit from another demonic departure. But there you go, and that’s generally why the servants of God make a habit of blessing His name.