To Non-Catholics: Miracles and Holy Relics

[shannin]

Churchmouse,

You are very good at quoting the Bible. Where do you think the Bible came from? Who canonized the Bible? Do you think that Jesus left a written word when he left? Or, do you think that he left Peter, the Rock, in charge of His church?
**
Please, answer, Churchmouse.
**

Shannin

 

[Little_Mary]

Churchmouse:

Well, as to how you take Jesus’ words are debatable as evidenced by the many threads on this forum and other forums around the

No, Churchmouse. Men such as Martin Luther made it debatable.

I don’t think I need to go into details as to how much I know about Mary any more than I would expect you to. Again, “Mary” doesn’t bring as much attention on Christ as she does on “herself.” Whether she asks the faithful to pray isn’t the problem, but when “she” asks for the rosary (where “she” is predominant) or when “she” asks for meditation on “her” immaculate heart, or when she asks for monuments in “her” name. Again, Mary was a humble servant of God, one of which the Bible and the earliest church says very little about, and yet, a elaborate theology has been created about her.

Again, no. Mary is not predominant in the rosary. The rosary is a meditation on the life of Christ. Not of Mary. When we repeat the Hail Mary during the rosary, we are to be dwelling on some aspect of Christ’s life. Again, everything she has done is for the sole purpose of delivering souls to Christ.

Please, don’t confuse the topic by adding more into the mix. I don’t have to appeal to Sola Scriptura considering the earliest church writings don’t say much about her either and leaves much to speculation. If Mary were such a intregal part of the Church, one would expect some allusion, even small, stating her importance in the life of the Church, but nothing is there other then the “implications” that are so common amongst those who find nothing.

Forgive me, it was not my intent to confuse the topic, but I think Sola Scriptura plays a part in how you feel about Mary. Furthermore, you mention the Church here - I’m assuming you mean the Church Christ founded - the Catholic Church - but anyway, I’d say that her giving birth to Jesus makes her an integral part of my faith as a Christian.

The verse points to Christ and Christ alone. Thomas stated he wouldn’t believe unless he could touch Jesus’ wounds. Later, Christ allows Thomas to do so and he believed. Christ follows with:

"Thomas, because you have seen Me you have believed. Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed (Jn.20:29)

I didn’t take anything out of context as you can see, but you did when you said:

Again, if you’re going to stick to this, then stop questioning things YOU have not seen.

The verse is about Christ, not about everything we haven’t seen.

Churchmouse, anyone reading that post can see that you took it out of context.

 

[MariaG]

Originally posted by Churchmouse

I thoroughly understand the difference between the two, but the thing is—I don’t *buy into *the differences between devotion to God and devotion to Mary.

There is nothing to “buy into”. There is a difference, you do not comprehend it. However, since your heart, soul and mind cannot comprehend a difference, you would be putting your soul in grave danger by devotion to Mary.

posted by churchmouse
You didn’t read it? And still you chose to defend it?

I actually did not defend it, I asked Originally Homer and then you to show me where the words of Our Lady contradict Jesus. Unlike you I can have confidence not only in God, but in the proclamations of my church. The church proclaimed that I may choose to believe the apparitions of Fatima. I can choose not to also. The Bible tells me the church is a “pillar and foundation of Truth” 1 Tim 3:15. So therefore, with great confidence, I can know that nothing Our Lady said contradict the teachings of Christ without even reading them first. And your belief that the words contradict stem from your inability to comprehend the difference between devotion to God (Worship) and devotion to Mary, her immaculate heart, the saints, your spouse, and if you have any, your children.

posted by churchmouse
Again, it wasn’t the garment, but the faith in Him that healed her. In all these instances, there is no record of these folks taking the artifacts, venerating them, …

Actually, the early church DID venerate relics. As you can read below, the first** recorded** instances happened within the first 200 years of Christianity. Churches were originally built over relics. (See Below). And I never said the garment healed, meaning some kind of magic. GOD chooses to heal through relics. Catholics
Christians believe the healings are because of their faith in God, and God chooses to act at times through relics.

Here is a link to an Article on relics:
http://www.monksofadoration.org/tabjun90.html

Some highlights are:
After the Apostolic times, the earliest record of honor paid relics of holy persons was written by the inhabitants of Smyrna about A.D. 156. After St. Polycarp had been burned at the stake, we are told that his faithful disciples “… took up his bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and laid them in a suitable place where the Lord will permit us to gather ourselves together in gladness and joy and to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom.”

We find even during the fierce persecution and prohibitions of Christians by the Romans small monuments built over the graves of martyrs. After the persecutions ceased in A.D. 313 the monuments were transformed into churches.

Vatican II also addressed the matter of relic veneration by noting that, “The saints have been traditionally honored in the Church and their authentic relics and images held in veneration. **For the feasts of the saints proclaim the wonderful works of Christ **in His servants, and display to the faithful fitting examples for their imitation”. The veneration of relics does not imply that there is any physical curative power or magical property in the relics themselves. **God is acknowledged as the author of the benefits. **St. Thomas Aquinas summarized the Catholic teaching by saying that God honors the relics of His saints by performing miracles in their presence.

 

[Churchmouse]

MariaG:

YES, YES, YES, even Christians like Homer and Churchmouse who have a complete misunderstanding of the teachings of the CC, who swallow whole the lies of Satan perpetuated by people like Jack Chick and Bob Jones, who do not think I am a Christian are part of the body of Christ. For although they are blinded to the full truth, they clearly love the Lord.

Maria,

This is very offensive. I mean “swallow the lies of Satan perpetuated by people like Jack Chick and Bob Jones”??? It seems whenever anyone exercises the ability to think and reason for oneself, they are accused in the most derogatory fashion. For the record, I despise the *sensationalism * of Jack Chick and believe his kind of tripe to be most un-Christian in manner. I can’t say anything about Bob Jones because of my unfamiliarity with him, much less swallow anything perpetuated by him due to my unfamiliarity. I don’t think you meant this in a derogatory fashion, but you shouldn’t be assuming anything. Also, you assume that I don’t consider you a Christian, but the only one who would know that is Jesus. Then there are statements such as, “For although they are blinded to the full truth.” Sorry, but as evidenced by my postings, I’m not that gullible. Just because someone claims to have the “full truth” doesn’t mean they do, especially when put under the scrutiny of Scripture and history.

Why else would they come here repeatedly, to a Catholic site, to sometimes be attatcked personally, and not just doctrinally?

Protestants are constantly misrepresented in various ways on these sites, so we join. We have disagreements of which we feel we have something to offer, so we join. I believe this is the same reasons why Catholics join non-Catholic forums as well. It isn’t wrong to challenge one’s faith. It will serve to make one stronger, challenge one deeply, or bring one to study. Either way it’s all good.

Peace,
CM

 

[MariaG]

posted by Churchmouse

There isn’t anything to concede. I’ve already stated that God can

use objects, like handkerchiefs, if He’d like.

I’m glad we agree on this point .

But I cannot in good conscience say that the Catholic has Biblical support for the collection and veneration of these objects. If anything, the evidence points otherwise.

I disagree but respect the fact that your conscience does not allow you state otherwise.

If I missed anything please repost it, but now I am going to go do some devotional worship to God, say a Rosary meditating on Christ’s Life and ask Mary to pray with me to God for those who have offended Him. For when two or more are gathered in my name…
God Bless
Maria

 

[Little_Mary]

Churchmouse:

Again, I used it in context. You made it general. I would appreciate if you would acknowledge that.

I’ll acknowledge that I took my response a step further to make a point. Which is what you did. Your original post did not use that verse in context. We were not originally discussing Christ’s wounds and Doubting Thomas.

Again, the Catholic faith takes Scripture within context.

Yes, I do respect those who don’t believe like I do and it’s never personal unless they spread error to others. At the same time my respect doesn’t mean that I must ignore error. The early church had to deal with the likes of Cerinthus and other Gnostics. They had to deal with Judaizers. They didn’t ignore these errors and Christians shouldn’t either.

Precisely. And many people spread error about the Catholic faith. Case in point - you stated above that the rosary is centered on Mary. That is just one example. “I don’t care of you disagree with what I believe, but disagree with what I really believe” - J. Martignoni.

Peace to you, too.

 

[Churchmouse]

shannin:

Churchmouse,

You are very good at quoting the Bible. Where do you think the Bible came from? Who canonized the Bible? Do you think that Jesus left a written word when he left? Or, do you think that he left Peter, the Rock, in charge of His church?
**
Please, answer, Churchmouse.
**

Shannin

Thank you for the compliment, but none of this is relevant to the discussion.

Peace,
CM

 

[MariaG]

Dear Church mouse,

I apologize for having offended you.

If I did not believe there was a difference between devotion to Mary and that which is given to God, I would call that idolatry. Therefore, I would not consider that person a Christian. Since you argue in that manner, I do not think you would see Catholics who have devotion to Mary as Christian. However, I concede, you might not believe that.

Do you believe a person can be a Christian, can be going to heaven and can be seriously devoted to Mary?

I glad you depise Jack Chick. He not only presents it in an unchristian manner, he LIES about the Catholic church and twists her teachings.

God Bless

Maria

 

[Churchmouse]

Little Mary:

I’ll acknowledge that I took my response a step further to make a point. Which is what you did. Your original post did not use that verse in context. We were not originally discussing Christ’s wounds and Doubting Thomas.

And it wasn’t meant to, this is what I said:

The way I see it is as Christ put it:

“Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed.”

I don’t need these things to know Jesus. The way I see it, if a church needs all these types of things to prove that her doctrines are true, they probably aren’t.

This goes with the context of the verse. I haven’t seen Jesus, yet I believe.

Again, the Catholic faith takes Scripture within context.

Then you can’t fault me if I find some things which I feel are incontextual.

Precisely. And many people spread error about the Catholic faith. Case in point - you stated above that the rosary is centered on Mary. That is just one example. “I don’t care of you disagree with what I believe, but disagree with what I really believe” - J. Martignoni.

Nice quote. One I agree with wholeheartedly and that’s why I’m here.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

MariaG:

Dear Church mouse,

I apologize for having offended you.

I didn’t think you did it intentionally, so there’s nothing to apologize for. My only point is in the way your post could be interpreted.

If I did not believe there was a difference between devotion to Mary and that which is given to God, I would call that idolatry. Therefore, I would not consider that person a Christian. Since you argue in that manner, I do not think you would see Catholics who have devotion to Mary as Christian. However, I concede, you might not believe that.

Do you believe a person can be a Christian, can be going to heaven and can be seriously devoted to Mary?

I’m not the judge of that. I can only offer what I see from a Biblical and early historical perspective. Marian devotion isn’t what I see in either, but like I said, I’m not the one who searches the hearts.

I glad you depise Jack Chick. He not only presents it in an unchristian manner, he LIES about the Catholic church and twists her teachings.

WHOA! I didn’t say I despise Jack Chick. I am called to love all men. I said I despise his sensationalism and his un-Christian tripe. The stuff he writes regarding the Catholic Church is contemptuous and ridiculous.

Peace,
CM

 

[Little_Mary]

shannin:

Churchmouse,

You are very good at quoting the Bible. Where do you think the Bible came from? Who canonized the Bible? Do you think that Jesus left a written word when he left? Or, do you think that he left Peter, the Rock, in charge of His church?

Please, answer, Churchmouse.


Shannin

Churchmouse, you say this is not relevant to the discussion, but you are using the bible to defend your point of view so therefore, it is.

 

[Churchmouse]

Little Mary:

No, Churchmouse. Men such as Martin Luther made it debatable.

The Bible makes it debatable, LM. The fact that not all church fathers are in common with all Roman distinctives makes it debatable. We don’t need Martin Luther to see that.

Again, no. Mary is not predominant in the rosary. The rosary is a meditation on the life of Christ. Not of Mary. When we repeat the Hail Mary during the rosary, we are to be dwelling on some aspect of Christ’s life. Again, everything she has done is for the sole purpose of delivering souls to Christ.

When I use to pray the rosary, I would meditate on Christ, but couldn’t meld it with the fact that I was praying to Mary. See what I mean?

Forgive me, it was not my intent to confuse the topic, but I think Sola Scriptura plays a part in how you feel about Mary. Furthermore, you mention the Church here - I’m assuming you mean the Church Christ founded - the Catholic Church - but anyway, I’d say that her giving birth to Jesus makes her an integral part of my faith as a Christian.

You seem to have some misconception of Sola Scriptura. It doesn’t mean that we cannot use other sources, such as the Church Fathers, to substantiate what is within Scripture. Only that Scripture is the only, tangible truth the Church has, so it is authoritative. So, in context, I stated two things: 1) that Scripture doesn’t say much about Mary and 2) that the earliest church writings don’t say much about her either. As to your question regarding the Catholic Church, I will refrain from my definition considering it isn’t relevant to the topic.

Churchmouse, anyone reading that post can see that you took it out of context.

You may wish it to be, but I’m confident others will see it as is.

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Churchmouse:

When I use to pray the rosary, I would meditate on Christ, but couldn’t meld it with the fact that I was praying to Mary. See what I mean?

You seem to have some misconception of Sola Scriptura. It doesn’t mean that we cannot use other sources, such as the Church Fathers, to substantiate what is within Scripture. Only that Scripture is the only, tangible truth the Church has. So, in context, I stated two things: 1) that Scripture doesn’t say much about Mary and 2) that the earliest church writings don’t say much about her either. As to your question regarding the Catholic Church, I will refrain from my definition considering it isn’t relevant to the topic.

You may wish it to be, but I’m confident others will see it as is.

Peace,
CM

 

[MariaG]

Churchmouse, I did not mean to imply you despise Jack Chick the man. I was referring to his writing. Sorry for the incomplete shorthand typing. The unfortunate fact is that too many believe the writings of Jack Chick are true.

God Bless,

Maria

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

homer:

My opinion: simply these “miracles” do not have Jesus as there source because their messages are not Biblical. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. (2 Cor 11:14).

About the Holy Relics: i don’t have much info about it, but in case you have the true Cross, then what? It is a piece of wood. It is not this piece of wood that is important but the death of our Lord Jesus on this wood. Jesus the only one who should be worshiped, venerated, adored… etc…

Well, we see that Paul healed people by touching a cloth and passing it around to people with ailments to heal them. Also, We see people leaving their sick out beside the roads where Peter and Paul walked, so that their shadow could heal them, and they did. Also, about the apparitions being satanic, if you saw Jesus appear to you, and give you information, then you would probably believe it without first looking at it. It could have been the devil, but you wouldn’t believe it because it was Jesus. The only reason you say that these apparitions are satanic are because they are of Mary. We know that apparitions of a familial spirit is to be accursed, but Mary wouldn’t fall under that categorey because because it contradicts the doctrine of the assumption. It was declared by the church that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. She wouldn’t then, appear as a spirit, though with a body, a glorified body. The church also, didn’t approve the apparitions at first and are very careful when dealing with apparitions. They are so cautious that even if an apparition is approved, they don’t require every Catholic to believe it, because they don’t. It isn’t a part of the deposit of faith that the church has taught to be true. Also, when the church approves an apparition, they by every means “approve” it, but the don’t “affirm” it. Even if the pope chooses to believe in an apparition, that doesn’t mean that it’s “affirmed”. You have your view of apparitions all wrong.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

homer:

My opinion: simply these “miracles” do not have Jesus as there source because their messages are not Biblical. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. (2 Cor 11:14).

About the Holy Relics: i don’t have much info about it, but in case you have the true Cross, then what? It is a piece of wood. It is not this piece of wood that is important but the death of our Lord Jesus on this wood. Jesus the only one who should be worshiped, venerated, adored… etc…

Also, it’s not that their messages aren’t biblical. Their messages don’t agree with protestant theology, which is the tradition of men, since this theology wasn’t given by God, but was thought up by men. All of the bishops in the church hold to one teaching. That’s what we can’t say about protestant ministers because they teach their own personal views of the Bible, and the people in congregations do the same. They hold no regard to one teaching, but to their own opinions. They, then, are liable to believe one interpretation of a scripture passage one day, and then look at it again another day, and completely contradict their belief. The Bible holds only one faith in it’s pages, not tens of thousands of others, not counting the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of different personal interpretations that people in denominations have. So, even if the Catholic church was the tradition of men, which it isn’t, tens of thousands of different faith traditions aren’t the answer, so if the above case scenario is true, then neither of us have the answer, and neither of us are then, the true faith.

 

[Lilyofthevalley]

Actually, here are some healings through “relics” in the Bible. It is 100% understood that the healing is FROM God but he chooses to do so THROUGH the use of a relic.​

There are healings and miracles through prayers at Protestant churches.
As for crying and moving statues I really believe people put too much stock in that sort of thing.

 

[Little_Mary]

Churchmouse:

The Bible makes it debatable, LM. The fact that not all church fathers are in common with all Roman distinctives makes it debatable. We don’t need Martin Luther to see that.

Jesus was very clear when He spoke about this. But there are those who wish to claim that He meant something else in order to make it fit into their own man-made beliefs. If you want to go further on this one, it should probably be in another thread.

When I use to pray the rosary, I would meditate on Christ, but couldn’t meld it with the fact that I was praying to Mary. See what I mean?

If that was difficult for you, then maybe the rosary wasn’t a good prayer ‘guideline’ for you individually. You might have prayed to the Holy Spirit for more help in that area, or you might have just prayed other prayers instead. AS a Catholic, you were not obligated to be devoted to the rosary.

You seem to have some misconception of Sola Scriptura. It doesn’t mean that we cannot use other sources, such as the Church Fathers, to substantiate what is within Scripture. Only that Scripture is the only, tangible truth the Church has, so it is authoritative. So, in context, I stated two things: 1) that Scripture doesn’t say much about Mary and 2) that the earliest church writings don’t say much about her either. As to your question regarding the Catholic Church, I will refrain from my definition considering it isn’t relevant to the topic.

We’ve touched on several things off topic, but I agree, let’s not completely change course here.

You may wish it to be, but I’m confident others will see it as is.

Peace,
CM

I still maintain that you used it out of context and then jumped on me for doing the same (but I was only keeping it in line with your original meaning/post). Notwithstanding that, I think we’ve sufficiently beaten this one to death.

I hope (and I know you already know this) that you find your way back to Catholicism someday. Have you posted on any of the other threads that ask why ex-Catholics are ex-Catholics?, if so, which thread?
Thanks

 

[MariaG]

posted by Lily
There are healings and miracles through prayers at Protestant churches.

What do you think God is doing by healing through relics. Answering the prayers of those who touch it. As it show us in the Bible, God chooses to heal through relics. Catholics do not believe the relic has some residual holiness that heals. God does the healing. He answers the prayers of those who touch it.

As for crying and moving statues I really believe people put too much stock in that sort of thing.

I personally do not choose to follow that sort of thing, nor does the church require me to. And not every “miracle” that you read about is sanctioned as one by the Church even though the implication is that it is a “real” miracle.

 

[Mjohn1453]

Churchmouse

You seem to have some misconception of Sola Scriptura. It doesn’t mean that we cannot use other sources, such as the Church Fathers, to substantiate what is within Scripture. Only that Scripture is the only, tangible truth the Church has, so it is authoritative. So, in context, I stated two things: 1) that Scripture doesn’t say much about Mary and 2) that the earliest church writings don’t say much about her either. As to your question regarding the Catholic Church, I will refrain from my definition considering it isn’t relevant to the topic.

I hate to say it, but you are wrong. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are what the Church has to go on. You cannot have one without the the other. The Bible comes from Sacred Tradition. If you deny Sacred Tradition you deny the Bible. The two are equally important, despite how much protestants would like to deny it.

“Scripture doesn’t say much about Mary” Does it have to? Where does it say anywhere that something has to be in the Bible excessively before it is accepted? Granted more references in the Bible leads the Church to better understanding of the mysteries of God, but it isn’t essential for things to be in Scripture more than once. The Church gathers much of its doctrines on Mary on what appears in Sacred Scripture and what divine revelation has opened our eyes to. An example of this is the Old Testament. The Old Testament had veiled what Christ revealed and was recorded in the New Testament. Meaning the Old Testament had stuff in it that wasn’t understood fully until God Chose to reveal it.

The Early Church had a lot of writings about Mary and were very concerned about her. Go back and read any random selection of work produced at the time people like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.