How does Marian devotion save?

[Tomster]

Again, you are acquiescing to an extra-biblical tradition, for you have cited no verse which reveals what Mary understood.

But, hey, you’ve already acknowledged that you have many extra-biblical (and some in affirmation of Sacred Tradition) doctrines, so what’s one more?

EXACTLY !

You tell 'em girl !

 

[Tomster]

You need to take off those evangelical glasses, and see the scriptures for what they’re saying. Passage 1, genisis God will put Emnity between the woman and the snake, Revelation 12, the dragon will make war on the woman, and her off spring, Romans 16, Paul tells Timothy he shall crush the head of the serpant.

None of these passages are in conflict with the fact that Christ was victorious on the cross. Want to guess how this is true?

When it comes to interpreting Scripture that’s pretty much all Moondweller can do - GUESS! Either that or looking up some Fundamentalist commentary written by someone else. Either way, he had totally discredited himself.

“evangelical glasses” - Can I use that one?

 

[PRmerger]

When it comes to interpreting Scripture that’s pretty much all Moondweller can do - GUESS! Either that or looking up some Fundamentalist commentary written by someone else. Either way, he had totally discredited himself

Indeed. And in this paradigm it’s either his fallible, private, non-authoritative interpretation versus another person’s, and there’s no way to know whose interpretation is correct.

The fundamental question is this: Is moondweller an infallible authoritative interpreter of Scripture?

If he’s not claiming infallibility, which I am pretty certain he’s not, then he’s admitted fallibilty.

And “fallible”, by definition, means he’s going to be wrong.

Going.

To.

Be.

Wrong.

And with his 2000+ posts, many which provided his fallible interpretations of Scripture, when was he wrong?

(Answer: each and every time his interpretations departed from the infallible, authoritative teachings of the Apostles.) :sad_yes:

Thank goodness Catholics have the assurance of the infallible teaching authority of the Holy Spirit!

Otherwise, we’re left with the chaos and confusion of 33,000 different Christian denominations which have departed from Apostolic Authority–each claiming that their interpretation of God’s Word is the correct one.

 

[crazzeto]

When it comes to interpreting Scripture that’s pretty much all Moondweller can do - GUESS! Either that or looking up some Fundamentalist commentary written by someone else. Either way, he had totally discredited himself.

“evangelical glasses” - Can I use that one?

I’d love to take credit for that, but it comes from Steve Ray, a very honest seeker who came home to the Catholic Church from the Evangelical faith tradition that moondweller shares. I’d recommend his book Crossing the Tiber to him.

 

[Tomster]

I’d love to take credit for that, but it comes from Steve Ray, a very honest seeker who came home to the Catholic Church from the Evangelical faith tradition that moondweller shares. I’d recommend his book Crossing the Tiber to him.

“Crossing the Tiber” is an excellent read - thought provoking, honest, sincere. It gave me a special understanding of the struggle non-Catholic Christians have on their “Journey Home.”

 

[PRmerger]

Yet not one of these passages mentions devotion to that lady and her “Immaculate Heart.” So, yes, VERY DIFFERENT, indeed.

Again, so what?

You’ve already established that you believe things not found in Scripture, such as knowing what Mary understood.

 

[Tomster]

Indeed. And in this paradigm it’s either his fallible, private, non-authoritative interpretation versus another person’s, and there’s no way to know whose interpretation is correct.

The fundamental question is this: Is moondweller an infallible authoritative interpreter of Scripture?

If he’s not claiming infallibility, which I am pretty certain he’s not, then he’s admitted fallibilty.

And “fallible”, by definition, means he’s going to be wrong.

Going.

To.

Be.

Wrong.

And with his 2000+ posts, many which provided his fallible interpretations of Scripture, when was he wrong?

(Answer: each and every time his interpretations departed from the infallible, authoritative teachings of the Apostles.) :sad_yes:

Thank goodness Catholics have the assurance of the infallible teaching authority of the Holy Spirit!

Otherwise, we’re left with the chaos and confusion of 33,000 different Christian denominations which have departed from Apostolic Authority–each claiming that their interpretation of God’s Word is the correct one.

Wow, you are on fire girl!

"Going

To

Be

Wrong"

It is amazing he cannot see it. Could it be the glasses he has on or could it be just a simple case of pride or a combination of the two?

 

[PRmerger]

Wow, you are on fire girl!

"Going

To

Be

Wrong"

shaw:

It’s simply what “fallible” means–going to be wrong. At some point every fallible person’s interpretation is going to be wrong.

Good thing Catholics don’t have to rely on their own fallibility, but have the assurance of the infallible Magisterium to guide us as to what God has revealed through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[moondweller]

Since when is a scapular required? Please tell me the date and time at which this happend. Thanks

Can we be sure she meant by her appearance dressed as Our Lady of Carmel and holding the Scapular, that she wanted the Scapular as part of the Message?" Lucia answered: “Yes.” And she added, “Now the Holy Father has already told this to the whole world, saying that the Brown Scapular is a sign of Consecration to the Immaculate Heart. Nobody can disagree now.” To make the point even clearer, I asked: “In giving the conditions of the Fatima Message, is it correct to say that the Brown Scapular is one of the conditions?” Lucia answered: “Yes, certainly.” Then I asked: “Is the wearing of the Scapular as important as the saying of the daily Rosary?” Lucia answered: “Yes, the Rosary and the Scapular are inseparable!”:tiphat:

 

[LilyM]

Mind you it says “a miracle,” not a “vision.” So, it was an actual, physical occurrence. I cannot find a documented account, newspaper clipping, etc., reporting the sun dancing and leaving the sky and throwing itself into a crowd and not burning up those people or, moreover, the destruction of the entire earth.
​

Fatima’s in Portugal. The eyewitnesses would’ve been almost exclusively Portuguese writing IN Portuguese. That might be why.​

 

[moondweller]

Fatima’s in Portugal. The eyewitnesses would’ve been almost exclusively Portuguese writing IN Portuguese. That might be why.

WHAT? The phenomena would have been world wide - in fact, world destructive.

 

[moondweller]

Thank goodness Catholics have the assurance of the infallible teaching authority of the Holy Spirit!

Otherwise, we’re left with the chaos and confusion of 33,000 different Christian denominations which have departed from Apostolic Authority–each claiming that their interpretation of God’s Word is the correct one.

And yet I didn’t see one quote from your Magisterium on this thread when a Catholic posted his interpretation of a particular Scripture. I’m still waiting for one of you to give me a link to the “official” Catholic commentary on all the verses of the Bible. Otherwise you’re all just posting your own private interpretations and opinions. Or are each of you claiming infallibility?

 

[PRmerger]

WHAT? The phenomena would have been world wide - in fact, world destructive.

Clearly, the fact that you know about an event that happened in a tiny village in the 1900s means that it was newsworthy enough, right?

 

[moondweller]

Clearly, the fact that you know about an event that happened in a tiny village in the 1900s means that it was newsworthy enough, right?

Do know know what the event was, PR?

 

[LilyM]

WHAT? The phenomena would have been world wide - in fact, world destructive.

Noah’s flood WAS, by scriptural accounts, world destructive. Yet it wasn’t noted or recorded world wide - in fact there are large parts of the world where one can’t find scientific evidence or cultural record of this flood, even though (for example here in Australia) man has been around long enough to have both noted and recorded it, and kept it alive in cultural memory if not written it or depicted it anywhere.

 

[PRmerger]

And yet I didn’t see one quote from your Magisterium on this thread when a Catholic posted his interpretation of a particular Scripture. I’m still waiting for one of you to give me a link to the “official” Catholic commentary on all the verses of the Bible. Otherwise you’re all just posting your own private interpretations and opinions. Or are each of you claiming infallibility?

I’ve already corrected you on this before, way back, Moon.

Here’s the info again:

Are Catholics free to interpret Bible verses without the Church’s approval?
”
A:
So far as the interpretations of individual scriptural passages go, keep in mind that the Church does not, as a rule, define how specific verses are to be taken. Instead, it defines doctrine, and that definition may eliminate some interpretations of particular verses. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma should answer most of your questions in these areas about the Church’s teaching office.

Only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially—but not fully—defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent (see “The Limits of Scriptural Interpretation” in the January 2001 issue of This Rock):
• The reference to being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 includes the idea of baptism.
• In telling the apostles, “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
• In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus conferred on the apostles the power to forgive sins; everyone does not share this power.
• Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
• The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained, not merely elder members of the Christian community. Source originally posted here.

You’re kind of obdurate, aren’t you?

 

[moondweller]

I’ve already corrected you on this before, way back, Moon.

Here’s the info again:

Are Catholics free to interpret Bible verses without the Church’s approval?
”
A:
So far as the interpretations of individual scriptural passages go, keep in mind that the Church does not, as a rule, define how specific verses are to be taken. Instead, it defines doctrine, and that definition may eliminate some interpretations of particular verses. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma should answer most of your questions in these areas about the Church’s teaching office.

Only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially—but not fully—defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent (see “The Limits of Scriptural Interpretation” in the January 2001 issue of This Rock):
• The reference to being “born of water and the Spirit” in John 3:5 includes the idea of baptism.
• In telling the apostles, “Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me” in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
• In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus conferred on the apostles the power to forgive sins; everyone does not share this power.
• Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
• The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained, not merely elder members of the Christian community. Source originally posted here.

You’re kind of obdurate, aren’t you?

So then all your interpretations are PRIVATE.

 

[moondweller]

Noah’s flood WAS, by scriptural accounts, world destructive. Yet it wasn’t noted or recorded world wide - in fact there are large parts of the world where one can’t find scientific evidence or cultural record of this flood, even though (for example here in Australia) man has been around long enough to have both noted and recorded it, and kept it alive in cultural memory if not written it or depicted it anywhere.

The Deluge was recorded. In fact in theopneustos Scripture. So we know for a fact it’s true.

Now on that October day the sun danced in the heavens, turned blood red, left the sky and threw itself into a crowd of 70,000, I’m sure ALL THE WORLD would have noticed it missing. In fact it would have destroyed the entire earth. This wasn’t a vision, it was suppose to be an actual event. Do you know the difference between the size of the sun and that of the earth, Lily? Do you realize how fragile the distance between the sun and earth is? A slight bit further and we’d freeze. A slight bit closer and we’re burn up. Yet that lady made it dance and somehow throw itself into a crowd of 70,000. Really, Lily? Really?

The Deluge actually did kill off all life except those spared by and with Noah.

 

[LilyM]

The Deluge was recorded. In fact in theopneustos Scripture. So we know for a fact it’s true.

Now on that October day the sun danced in the heavens, turned blood red, left the sky and threw itself into a crowd of 70,000, I’m sure ALL THE WORLD would have noticed it missing. In fact it would have destroyed the entire earth. This wasn’t a vision, it was suppose to be an actual event. Do you know the difference between the size of the sun and that of the earth, Lily? Do you realize how fragile the distance between the sun and earth is? A slight bit further and we’d freeze. A slight bit closer and we’re burn up. Yet that lady made it dance and and somehow throw itself into a crowd of 70,000. Really, Lily? Really?

No, it wasn’t ‘that lady’. ‘That lady’ has no such power. If it happened (which we’re not required to believe) then God did it, and no-one who believes in the apparition believes otherwise. Really.

The same GOD who caused the flood, raised Lazarus from the dead and indeed brought both sun and earth into existence. Are you doubting that HE could do so if He chose? Really?

He in fact did so in the past. Really. He made the sun go backwards in it course for Isaiah and king Hezekiah.

As you rightly point out, ONE record, if it’s from a truthful source, is enough. Do you think scripture is the ONLY record of truth?

If you told me something, would you not expect me to at least think you might be telling the truth? Until such time as someone contradicted you, and came out saying ‘no, I was there and it DIDN’T happen as moondweller says it did’?

Do YOU have any records of anyone who was at Fatima on that day and saw and heard nothing? No? Then at least consider that it MIGHT be true. Which is all the Church asks us to do.

The Deluge actually did kill off all life except those spared by and with Noah.

Didn’t stop the Sumerians - descended from those survivors, obviously - having a cultural memory of the flood and recording it in their stories of their hero Gilgamesh. Some other cultures have done so too - the myth of the drowned continent of Atlantis and the like.

So the fact that Noah and his family were the only survivors obviously meant that the story was passed on to their descendants and recorded both in scripture and other records.

So those Sumerian and other records AREN’T trustworthy? Even though they too describe an event that actually happened? Nothing happened that isn’t recorded in scripture and no other word can be trusted?

 

[PRmerger]

Do know know what the event was, PR?

Apparently not.