The Virgin Mary

[davidv]

Manny,

Caritas is a cult and the Catholic Church could stop them, but they remain silent.

Where is your outrage at these deceivers? Instead you are angry with me for exposing them.

Do you agree with Caritas or do you think they are a cult preying on unsuspecting Catholics?

How do you propose the Church stop them? The Church has no army, no police force save the few protecting the Vatican.

 

[Ginger2]

My disappointment in the Catholic Church is their silence.

Is not the Church supposed to be the defender of the faith?

Then why are they silent? Why are you going to be silent.

I guess it is easier to say, “none of this is from the vatican” It then it is to be concerned for those who are being misled.

It’s a shame that only a non-catholic is willing to speak out against them.

The Catholic Church has elevated Mary to such a high position and that is why it has made it easy for some to get caught up in this deception.

 

[Mannyfit75]

My disappointment in the Catholic Church is their silence.

I believe the Catholics who had participated in this thread which you open already gave you an answer.

Is not the Church supposed to be the defender of the faith?

Then why are they silent? Why are you going to be silent

.

The Catholic Church does acknowledge certain groups that claim to be Catholic such as the Caritas of Biringham.

I guess it is easier to say, “none of this is from the vatican” It then it is to be concerned for those who are being misled.

It’s a shame that only a non-catholic is willing to speak out against them.

The Catholic Church has elevated Mary to such a high position and that is why it has made it easy for some to get caught up in this deception.

I’m sure some Catholic laity may have taken note. Rick Ross a former member of Caritas of Birmingham has taken action in his website.

rickross.com/groups/caritas.html

If a Catholic group claim to have a “divine revelation” contrary to the Divine Revelation professed by the Catholic Church, then it is not Catholic. They are Shimatics.

 

[jmcrae]

Manny,

Caritas is a cult and the Catholic Church could stop them, but they remain silent.

Where is your outrage at these deceivers? Instead you are angry with me for exposing them.

Do you agree with Caritas or do you think they are a cult preying on unsuspecting Catholics?

There are literally hundreds of cults and false religions. The fact that the Catholic Church has not approved them should be statement enough. No one has time to write letters of disapproval about every wacko religion that is out there - besides, remember what happened to us the last time we tried that? People have to use their common sense.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Catholic Church has elevated Mary to such a high position and that is why it has made it easy for some to get caught up in this deception.

Early Christian heresy also develop like this also. Like Monosytism (spelling) which proclaim that Jesus has one nature. This was taken out of context by some of the Early bishops. Church Council then condemned that heresy.

There is a certain extend, that some people will go at length to distort the truth.

I even ran into a so called “Catholic website” that claimed that Mary is the “Fourth Person of the Trinity.” When I saw that cite, I was deeply upset. The Catholic Church I know affirms that the Trinity is Three Persons, and One God.

 

[japhy]

Caritas of Burmingham. These people pose as faithful Catholics and claim that The Virgin Mary is appearing to thousands to give her messages. Some Catholics are falling for it and the Church does nothing to condemn their blaspheme.

This Caritas group is connected to the Medjugorje apparitions, which are not approved by the Church, and thus, the Caritas group is not affiliated with the Church. See the evidence about them here, along with a statement from the Bishop of Birmingham in 1999.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

There is no Church complicity with Caritas of Birmingham.
The competent authority in this matter, the Archdiocese of Birmingham, has stated officially that Caritas of Birmingham is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church.

All I had to do was Google “Caritas of Birmingham,”
and I got links to numerous CHURCH rejections of this group.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[justasking4]

The “queen of heaven” mentioned in JEREMIAH (the old testament) is a pagan goddess OF THAT TIME.

Just because this term was used of a pagan goddess does not mean that there is not a REAL queen of heaven.

After all, I believe in Esdras !:6 Ataxerxes is refered to as “king of kings”. So also Ezechiel 26:7 God HIMSELF refers to Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon as the ‘king of kings’.

Now by YOUR logic, one would NEVER be able to call Jesus Christ, “king of kings”, because
according to SCRIPTURE, the ‘king of kings’ is Ataxerxes. Or Nebuchadnezzar.

Care to explain this? Or is Jesus Christ not “king of kings?”

The NT is quite clear that Jesus is King of King …
“These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because** He is Lord of lords and King of kings**, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”
Revlelations 17:14

 

[Ginger2]

The letter from Burmingham ends like this:

“Throughout history there have been so-called “Private” revelations, some of which have been recognized as “private” experiences. They are a help to people to live more fully their authentic call from Christ. Christian faith cannot accept “revelation” that claims to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment.
As Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Birmingham, I have not, nor would I ever, discourage or have any objection to the people praying in the field. They are devout Catholics.
…
Since the visions of Medjugorje are still under investigation relative to their authenticity by the Holy See, I should not give any sign of approval nor associate with events connected with these visions.
December 10, 1999”

This wishy washy statement leaves room for Catholics to get sucked into Caritas. I know - I’ve spoken with some who follow Caritas trying to prove Caritas are in conflict with the Catholic Church.

The Church needs to stop their “investigations” and make a definite statement condemning this cult. This open-ended non-sense is doing nothing for those who are being deceived, because they think Caritas is in line with Catholicism.

I’m done.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The letter from Burmingham ends like this:

"Throughout history there have been so-called “Private” revelations, some of which have been recognized as “private” experiences. They are a help to people to live more fully their authentic call from Christ. Christian faith cannot accept “revelation” that claims to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment.

As Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Birmingham, I have not, nor would I ever, discourage or have any objection to the people praying in the field. They are devout Catholics.

The private revelation in Caritas is not approved by the Catholic Church. Second, the Catholic Church does not profess that private revelations are to be believed by the faithful.

Pull this out of your catechism if you have one.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, **some of which have been recognized **by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

Since the visions of Medjugorje are still under investigation relative to their authenticity by the Holy See, I should not give any sign of approval nor associate with events connected with these visions.
December 10, 1999"

The Medjugorje is not an approved apparition. In fact it is disapproved. Some of the messages of Medjugorje claimed that life begins after the birth of a baby. This would contradict the teaching of the Church that states, “life begins at the moment of conception.”

This wishy washy statement leaves room for Catholics to get sucked into Caritas. I know - I’ve spoken with some who follow Caritas trying to prove Caritas are in conflict with the Catholic Church.

The Church needs to stop their “investigations” and make a definite statement condemning this cult. This open-ended non-sense is doing nothing for those who are being deceived, because they think Caritas is in line with Catholicism.

I’m done.

I am pretty sure the Catholic Church condemns this apparition. There isn’t much we can do about those who fallen into the trapped, other than pray for them.

I shall pray the divine mercy on their behalf tonight.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**This wishy washy statement leaves room for Catholics to get sucked into Caritas. I know - I’ve spoken with some who follow Caritas trying to prove Caritas are in conflict with the Catholic Church.

**** how ?? all the bishop said was he would never
condemn the people praying in the field. how could he??*****

The Church needs to stop their “investigations” and make a definite statement condemning this cult. This open-ended non-sense is doing nothing for those who are being deceived, because they think Caritas is in line with Catholicism.

***** like I said, all I had to do was Google “Caritas Birmingham” and I found numerous CHURCH rejections of this group, stating CLEARLY that it is not part of the Catholic Church. Do want the Bishop to hire a posse and go out to their HQ and shoot them all or something??? Ya know, the Church in the past HAS USED more forceful means of dealing with heretical cults. They were called “Inquisitions,” you know, those horrible Inquisitions that make fundamentalists wax eloquent in condemnation, those horrible Inquisitions which are condemned universally by all Intellectual Hillbillies Everywhere ******

I’m done.**

***** somehow I doubt it !!! God bless you.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Ginger2]

Thank you Manny,

I did pull that paragraph from the Catechism it is not direct enough.

I am praying for an official statement from the Church/Pope. Is there such a statement and where can I get it?

If any Catholic ignores that there is nothing left to do but pray.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thank you Manny,

I did pull that paragraph from the Catechism it is not direct enough.

I am praying for an official statement from the Church/Pope. Is there such a statement and where can I get it?

If any Catholic ignores that there is nothing left to do but pray.

The local bishops of Medjugorje said that Catholic prilgrim should not go there.

Here is the website.

olrl.org/prophecy/medjugorje.shtml

Here is an excerpt:

It is the duty of the local bishop of the diocese in which supposed supernatural events take place to study and confirm or deny the legitimacy of the claims being made. The bishop in the diocese to which Medjugorje belongs, Msgr. Zanic of Mostar, remitted this duty by forming a diocesan commission to do an impartial inquiry into the events that had been taking place since 1981. After a few years of thorough and intense investigative study, which the Church always exercises to determine an unmistakable decision in these matters, the Bishop issued a statement in 1986 giving the results of the study. In the statement, Msgr. Zanic proclaimed that these apparitions are not made by the most Holy Virgin Mary and he forbade the pilgrimages set up from the beginning without ecclesiastical approval by the pastor of Mostar

.

Here are some statement:

What the Church Says,

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all can be saved.”
–Pope Innocent III

What Medjugorje Says,

“God presides over all religions as a king controls his subjects, through his priests and ministers.”
–Svetozar Krljevic O.F.M.

“That they may be one, as thou Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that (as a consequence) the world may believe that Thou hast sent me.”
–John 17:21

Med Says,

Question: “Is the Blessed Mother calling all people to be Catholic?”
“No. The Blessed Mother says all religions are dear to her and her Son.”
–“Seer” Vicka Ivankovic

“Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
–Ephesians 4:3-5

Medjugorje Says,

“The Blessed Mother has said: 'Tell everyone that it is you who are divided on earth. The Moslems and the Orthodox for the same reason as Catholics, are equal before my Son and me.”

I don’t think this post will last since disapproved apparition is not to be discuss here. So we can this discuss in pm.

olrl.org/prophecy/medjugorje.shtml

As you can see the Medjugorje message is contrary to the teachings of the Church. So the Church disapproves. I believe the Vatican support the Local Bishop on their statement.

 

[Ginger2]

Thank you Manny.

And I mean a REALLY BIG thanks!

I will let you know what happens.

In the meantime pray about this.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thank you Manny.

And I mean a REALLY BIG thanks!

I will let you know what happens.

In the meantime pray about this.

I will. I just want to inform the correct understanding on the many beliefs of Mary we Catholics believe in.

The disapproved apparition of Mary is one apparition that is contrary to the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church.

When the Church examine these apparition, she is very careful in her examining it. In fact, there are only a few approved Marian apparition out there over the hundreds of reports.

I like to state though that, private revelation is not the part of the deposit of faith.

 

[apophasis]

Your “challenge” is of course a logical nonsense, impossible to answer on your terms - in that you demand a written form for an oral tradition!

But even your apologists reference written materials to prove or verifiy your Marian dogmas. Yet nowhere in those written documents is there proof that the Marian dogmas originated with the Apostles who received their teachings directly from Christ Himself. True Christian doctrine and dogma must be based on Apostolic teachings, not simply the opinions of men born generations (or even the same or next generation) later.

As I stated in previous posts, Mary’s IC and sinlessness are not something men could possibly know except through direct, divine revelation. So if God revealed these Marian revelations directly to men, and they in turn passed them down orally, then it would stand to reason that the “oral tradition” would also identify to whom the revelations were given. But those who make such fantastic assertions about Mary never mention an Apostle(s) from which it originated.

Might it be, as you claim, impossible to answer these questions “on my terms” because there exists no verifiable, Apostolic history connected to Rome’s Marian dogmas? The fact that there are none is what makes it “impossible,” not because my challenge is, as you say, "logically nonsensical.

What you’re advocating is the acceptance of the Marian doctrines on Rome’s terms. The “infallible” authority of Rome’s magesterium.There are plenty of disputed teachings that were considered novel and widely disputed. The sinlessness of Mary is not one of them.What are you talking about??? Please go back and read my posts. The IC of Mary was disputed by theologians, schoolmen, clergy and monks all the way up to the 19th century (even hotly disputed between the Dominicans and Franciscans) and became accepted dogma not by church council but by the decree of one lonely Pope - Pius IX, 1854. The same Pope who then called the Vatican Council (1870) for the purpose of ratifying the idea of “Papal infallibility” when speaking “ex cathedra.” How convenient for his newly, Papal decreed, Marian dogma.

 

[apophasis]

Why would ANY apostle have to have explicitly taught the I.C. in order for it to be the true understanding of the Scriptures? Doctrine develops over time.

(1) The Scriptures don’t teach the IC. (2) A doctrine like the Trinity codified what was already revealed in Scripture. Scripture itself being the authority behind the doctrine. It wasn’t new revelation. (3) True Christianity is not based on new revelation, i.e., subsequent to the Apostolic age.

What you’re referring to as time_developed_doctrine, explicitly the IC and sinlessness of Mary (along with other Marian doctrines such as her perpetual virginity, bodily assumption and heavenly coronation) are teachings based on human reasoning and personal opinion developed and accepted AFTER the Apostolic age. Unless you can prove otherwise.

The ministry of the Holy Spirit was not to come into the world to reveal new revelation but to bring to the remembrance of the Apostles all that Christ had taught them for the purpose of building His church (Jn. 14:26; Eph. 2:20). Only the Apostle Paul received personal instruction from Christ after His bodily ascension back into glory.

Everyone in the early church believed that Mary was holy and immaculate. It’s in all the patristic writings that address the subject of Mary.

Everyone??? I don’t think so. Nevertheless, it matters not what men came to believe about Mary if what they believed or taught had no divine authority to back it up.

How is it that in the patristic writings none connect their teachings directly to an Apostle or Christ Himself? None identify these Marian doctrines as having Apostolic origin. Certainly some stated their own personal opinions and beliefs about her, but none directly connect those opinions and beliefs to some kind of divine origin (revelation) or Apostolic authority. They’re simply asserted in their writings. Unless you’re claiming patristic writings as theopneustos. Are you?

The fact that RC’im has embraced, as dogma, the personal opinions of mere men does not, nor cannot, automatically brand those opinions as having Apostolic origin. One MUST provide proof of Apostolic origin of all doctrines taught in the church or you have on your hands a corrupt form of Christianity and is no better than Mohammadanism which states that you must believe it because we tell you to.

True Christianity does not allow personal opinion as its basis for forming church doctrine; nor for men to believe anything just because it makes them feel good, or because to their ears it sounds good. True Christianity is based on divine revelation only. It’s what makes it superior to all other “religions.”

 

[guanophore]

I agree with much you write here. We do wonder about the after life and such. However, i do have a problem when the catholic church makes doctrines out of these speculations and demand that catholics believe them as facts.

This is a mischaracterization, jusasking. The Church does not “make doctrines out of speculations and demand”. Rather, the Church has been entrusted with the authority of Jesus to teach right doctrine, and to bind these things. She defines and proclaims what has been divinely revealed. These are matters of faith, and do not arise from human speculation.

Furthermore, the Church does not “demand” faith from anyone, any more than Jesus did. She invites all to embrace the teaching of Jesus Christ.

 

[Church_Militant]

(1

) The Scriptures don’t teach the IC. (2) A doctrine like the Trinity codified what was already revealed in Scripture. Scripture itself being the authority behind the doctrine. It wasn’t new revelation. (3) True Christianity is not based on new revelation, i.e., subsequent to the Apostolic age. That’s not true. One need only look into the Greek to begin to truly understand that the Immaculate Conception is indeed taught in the Word of God. The very term “full of grace” is all one needs understand to see this teaching in the Gospel.

In fact, there is far more scriptural support for the Immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary than there is for any of the fundamental new winds of doctrines of men that has become modern Protestantism.

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide both require selective verse pulling from the context of the New Testament and then twisting their interpretations to fit doctrines that the proof texts simply do not support. Neither doctrine, upon which all of Protestantism (or non-denominational Christianity, if that is one’s preferred nomenclature. ) is an accurate teaching from the Bible.

It was the oppositional teachings of n-Cs/a-Cs that got me looking into these things for myself and it was then that I discovered that I had been misled by preachers and teachers while away from the Catholic faith. My Testimony.

 

[apophasis]

Apophasis, who said that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was handed down by “oral” tradition? Are you confusing “oral” with “apostolic”? Apostolic would apply to the ordained successors of the apostles as well: the popes and college of bishops.

Popes and the college of bishops cannot introduce new revelation, which is what the Marian dogmas are. They were not taught by the Apostles and were formed based on personal beliefs and opinions of certain men.

But the Magisterium of the Catholic Church authoritatively made this Marian truth ‘explicit’. This dogma is included in the Deposit of Faith: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

They have no authority to introduce new revelation.

Apophasis, of all the New Testament apostles who have implicitly “revealed” or taught what has become the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is Luke…But he was compelled by his divine co-author to write the verse we find in his Gospel, 1:28:

That verse states nothing about Mary’s conception. The context is not about Mary’s conception but the One she herself is about to conceive - therefore the angel addresses her as “favored one.”

The more you Protestants remove Mary from the entire picture, the more God becomes less a man, and the more we have a less chance of being redeemed!

You’ve got to be kidding me!!! Right? The more you exalt Mary the less you’ll be able to grasp what redemption truly is. The work of our redemption has nothing to do with Mary - it’s all the work of Christ (Rom. 3:24; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:18; Heb. 9:15).

The prophets addressed both present and future generations.The Paraclete makes known in time what is to come: “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ‘all’ truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you things that ‘are coming’ ( not that will come: Future, but after Pentecost: the Present Continuous)” (Jn 16:12-13). These things include our Marian doctrines.

Nice spin on this passage! But verse 14 gives you the context of Christ’s words:"He shall glorify Me;"IOW, He’s not talking about Mary at all. The Spirit came to glorify Christ.

“What is to come” is in reference to this church age and prophetic events surrounding Christ’s return: Prophecy. These we find written and preserved in the Epistles. Mary’s birth was of the past and has nothing to do with “what is to come.” Your interpretation is totally out of context.

Sorry, but I haven’t figured out how to separate quotes. Please see above. I’ll get back to you on the sinlessness of Mary and her redemption free from original sin.

Fine. But please get back with me bearing proof. Don’t just regurgitate Catholic dogma. I’m asking for PROOF please.