To Non-Catholics: Miracles and Holy Relics

[Andrew_Larkoski]

Do any Protestants know what happened at Hiroshima when the atomic bomb was dropped there in WWII?

Also, check out writings by St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, St. Ephraim, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Gregory of Tours, St. John Damascene, and others for specific references to Our Blessed Mother, Mary. They are all in accordance with the doctrines of the Catholic Chruch.

At Fatima, Churchmouse, Mary said to the three children to pray “Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy” after each decade in the rosary. This distinctly asks Jesus for forgiveness, not Mary. The “Hail Mary” prayer only asks for Mary’s prayer to Jesus on our behalf, much like if I asked you to pray for me to Jesus. Devotion to Mary gains another “prayer partner” in Jesus. Hope that helps.

 

[MariaG]

posted by Andrew

Do any Protestants know what happened at Hiroshima when the atomic bomb was dropped there in WWII?

That was such a powerful story. I cried.

 

[Little_Mary]

MariaG:

That was such a powerful story. I cried.

Can someone fill me in on this?

Thanks

 

[MariaG]

Fat Man was the bomb dropped on Japan during WWII:

Fat Man exploded directly above the Catholic cathedral in Nagasaki. The city was the historical center of Catholicism in Japan and contained about a tenth of the entire Catholic population. The cathedral was filled with worshipers who had gathered to pray for a speedy and just end to the war. It is said their prayers included a petition to offer themselves, if God so willed it, in reparation for the evils perpetrated by their country.

Short, not loaded with details, but a powerful testament all the same.

 

[Curious]

I’ll pray for you Curious. I think it is harder to be where you are at than where I am or Homer and Churchmouse are. And as someone who had to walk away from an Evangelical Church back into the CC I know how hard that walk can be.

You’re right about that MariaG. Where I am is not exactly fun and sometimes there doesn’t seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel (pardon the tired little cliche).

I appreciate your prayers though…and feel free to get Mary and whoever else in on it, too.

 

[Pax]

I’ve read this entire thread and have participated in a couple of other threads that pertain to the mother of Jesus. The discussions between Protestants and Catholics always seem to have certain characteristics that I think hinder the discussion. I honestly believe that Catholics do not sufficiently explain where the Blessed Virgin fits into the economy of scripture. This is not for lack of effort as can be noted on this thread. Effort does not, however, automatically equal sufficiency. I’ve found that I have much better success explaining Catholic teachings on Mary when my Protestant counter part has a better grasp of our love of God, our deep love and appreciation for the sacrifice of Jesus, and the meaning of the Mass.

Friendship and numerous conversations with my non-Catholic brothers and sisters prior to ever discussing the mother of Jesus makes them more receptive because they already have a more accurate idea of our hierarchy of truths. Unfortunately, that is not the typical situation we run into when explaining the faith. Most of the time we are questioned by people we do not know and have to focus on their questions and attacks on Catholic teaching.

So what happens? We never have the opportunity to talk about the many things we have in common and must defend the doctrines on the Blessed Virgin in the most effective way we can in the short period of time available. Since Protestants frequently find Marian teachings to be offensive, they often take overly aggressive steps in attacking them and force the Catholic to become even more aggressive in their defense.

I believe that our dialogues frequently contain a dynamic that we do not fully appreciate and neither side can, therefore, get through to the other. We have become very good at pushing one another’s theological buttons. When I experience this in exchanges with my non-Catholic brothers and sisters, frustration inevitably sets in.

Perhaps our non-Catholic brothers and sisters could ask themselves why they only call the mother of Jesus, “Mary.” We, as Catholics, call her “blessed” and we know that “all generations” will do so. I cannot help but believe that non-Catholics do not call her blessed because of bias and an over reaction to Catholic teaching.

We as Catholics need to do something about this. Perhaps we need to make it absolutely clear, a thousand times if necessary, that the greatest form of worship is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and that it is offered to God alone. Once this is thoroughly explained and “understood” our non-Catholic friends will see that there is a huge difference between the reverence and honor shown to Mary and the offering of divine worship to God alone as presented at Mass.

 

[MariaG]

posted by Pax
Friendship and numerous conversations with my non-Catholic brothers and sisters prior to ever discussing the mother of Jesus makes them more receptive because they already have a more accurate idea of our hierarchy of truths. Unfortunately, that is not the typical situation we run into when explaining the faith. Most of the time we are questioned by people we do not know and have to focus on their questions and attacks on Catholic teaching.

I agree 100%. Some of the best, open and receptive conversations have been with people who we just have talked generally about God in our lives. Protestants, in my experience, tend to talk more freely about God as a way to open conversation about Him to others. If they find another Christian, they praise God together, if the find a non-believer (or a non-Christian which can include JW’s, Mormon, and Catholic) it gives them a chance to spread the good News.

I think one of the most common (and possible sad) comments I hear from protestants once they find out I am Catholic is “I had no idea you were Catholic!” But it then gives them an opportunity to ask a person who they have considered to be a Christian questions like, But how can you be in a church that worships Mary?

 

[snuffy]

Peace to all:
A couple of things—First I was a doubting Thomas…but visited a little village in Bosnia…Medjugorge…I asked for a miracle…and I received many while there…Thank you Jesus…

Second—If Mary is good enough to be the mother of Jesus, she’s good enough for me…

Third—Jesus’ first miracle was manifested because His mother asked Him too… ahh intercession!!!

I Love Our Blessed Mother…and I pray that she continues to pray for Her Son’s wayward children.
Amen

 

[maggiec]

I was given a relic of St Peregrin for my co-worker that has lung cancer. She as worn the relic pinned to her hospital gown and even through surgery she was permitted to wear it. Her tumor has shrunk a great deal. We know the chemo has a part in it, chemo can help control her pain, she was told that it was unlikely she would live six months, I have prayed daily for her healing, if it be Gods will, and I believe, and so does she, that the medal of St Peregrin (with a third class relic) is helping her a great deal. Many have laughed at me for my belief, some have told her it is a superstition, but she still wears it and believes. She is not catholic. The Lord works many miracles.
maggiec

 

[Churchmouse]

MariaG:

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.

Maria, you can say that about practically anything. For instance, the fact that I don’t believe Muhammad was God’s messenger is because my “heart, soul, and mind cannot comprehend” that he communicated with the true God when he claims he did, therefore I have no devotion to Muhammad. Does my miscomprehension change the fact that Muhammad was deceived? In the case of devotion, I comprehend the difference between latria, hyperdulia, and dulia and what they signify and I acknowledge that the Church attempts to safeguard what is justly God’s. However, regardless of classification, the “actions” of many of the Catholic faithful (not all) are focused more so on the person of Mary than on the one who merits all glory. I know that the argument would automatically go to “We don’t worship Mary, we honor her”, but I’m not naïve on this—what a Catholic says and what he/she does seems amazingly like worship to me. How does this fit in with the apparitions? Because the more “she” appears, the more attention “she” draws to herself, and the more the Catholic faithful focuses on “her.” That’s where I see the focal point of the problem.

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.

I am not appealing to how the Catholic Church defines worship and veneration, but rather how these definitions aren’t enforced by the Church. As a result we find many Catholics focusing on Mary than on God and the Church allowing this to happen. The fact that the Church has a Marian pope doesn’t help this either. Now, as far as the Church being the “pillar and foundation of truth”, again, just like Sola Scriptura, these are just more disagreements I find irrelevant to the discussion and would work against—obfuscating the issue. For example, I can tell you that the church being the “pillar and foundation of truth” isn’t a guarantee against error. You will pick that up and argue that it is. You’ll bring in Mt.16:18 of which I’ll reply and, once again, that it isn’t a guarantee against error and then this particular discussion falls by the wayside.

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:
monksofadoration.org/tabjun90.html <>

…continued…

 

[Churchmouse]

Your source doesn’t document the citations, but I’ve heard the story about Polycarp and his bones through historian Philip Schaff:

The veneration thus shown for the persons of the martyrs was transferred in smaller measure to their remains. The church of Smyrna counted the bones of Polycarp more precious than gold or diamonds. The remains of Ignatius were held in equal veneration by the Christians at Antioch. The friends of Cyprian gathered his blood in handkerchiefs, and built a chapel over his tomb (History of the Christian Church

, Vol.2, Ch.2, 026-027).

Regarding the rise of this practice he also states:

In the church of Smyrna, according to its letter of the year 155, we find this veneration still in its innocent, childlike form: “They [the Jews] know not, that we can neither ever forsake Christ, who has suffered for the salvation of the whole world of the redeemed, nor worship another. Him indeed we adore as the Son of God; but the martyrs we love as they deserve for their surpassing love to their King and Master, as we wish also to be their companions and fellow-disciples.” The day of the death of a martyr was called his heavenly birth-day, and was celebrated annually at his grave (mostly in a cave or catacomb), by prayer, reading of a history of his suffering and victory, oblations, and celebration of the holy supper (ibid

).

As he points out, the year is 155 and this practice was still in its “innocent, childlike form.” It wasn’t a full-fledged veneration, but it wasn’t an age old practice either. The roots weren’t within the teachings of Christ or the Apostles, but an eventual development. Yet, my point is that there were also opposition to these practices. Also, there were church fathers who wrote against the veneration of images and relics, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Celsus, etc. Vigilantius opposed it in the 4th century and even as late as the 9th century, Claudius of Turin, a bishop, wrote against the use of images and relics. Again, I have no qualm against the usage of relics in the Biblical sense (as I have detailed before), which can be acceptable, but against the abuses which can result from it, especially when some claim it as “evidence” of the “true” church.

Peace,
CM

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Churchmouse:

Your source doesn’t document the citations, but I’ve heard the story about Polycarp and his bones through historian Philip Schaff:

Regarding the rise of this practice he also states:

As he points out, the year is 155 and this practice was still in its “innocent, childlike form.” It wasn’t a full-fledged veneration, but it wasn’t an age old practice either. The roots weren’t within the teachings of Christ or the Apostles, but an eventual development. Yet, my point is that there were also opposition to these practices. Also, there were church fathers who wrote against the veneration of images and relics, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Celsus, etc. Vigilantius opposed it in the 4th century and even as late as the 9th century, Claudius of Turin, a bishop, wrote against the use of images and relics. Again, I have no qualm against the usage of relics in the Biblical sense (as I have detailed before), which can be acceptable, but against the abuses which can result from it, especially when some claim it as “evidence” of the “true” church.

Peace,
CM

1-You might want to check that last source out a little bit more. It’s very possible that you misinterpreted the meaning of “innocent” and “childlike”.
2-Have you been to www.catholic.com? If not, I’d suggest you go and look in the “Mary and the Saints” library and then go to the “Relics” tract and find out more about the Catholic teaching on the veneration of relics, that is, if you haven’t.

 

[Wormwood]

Just a question to non-Catholics:

Many Holy Relics (the True Cross, the Shroud of Turin, etc.) are protected and venerated by the Catholic Church. Famous miracles and visions (Lourdes, Fatima, Hiroshima, etc.) all affirmed Catholic doctrines and beliefs. How do non-Catholics respond to these “proofs” that the Catholic Church is the True Church of Christ?

This is for NON-CATHOLICS right? There is certainly a lot of catholic sentiment for a question addressed to non-catholics. The answer to the question is simple: the shroud of turin is a fake is has been carbon dated to sometime in the dark (or middle ages). Much like the shroud, there are many other hoaxes. So many people have brought up Martin Luther, but I haven’t noticed anyone mentioning he broke away from the church because they were selling indulgences ( along with many other “unholy” practices ) using the very “artifacts” you are refering to. Thousands of people in the middle ages were sold a piece of the “true cross” and most if not all were fake. I think that so called miracles have a very similar explination ( not to mention a psychosemantic one) . Meaning that people have been proven to heal faster when they think a holy person is healing them or acting on their behalf ( in a similar study, rats healed faster when someone touched their wounds or projected “healing energy” into them ) Your mind is the miracle, not a piece of wood or cloth. Also your question assumes that your miracles and relics are accepted fact (which they are not). So to say that you are of the “true church of christ”, based on folklore about relics and hearsay about miracles, is fallacious. These things offer no more proof or validity than any other religion which claims miracles are proof that THEIR God or gods are the only true religion.

 

[Wormwood]

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.

 

[Wormwood]

Shannin, here is a third option: a bunch of regular guys sat around and changed and edited, and decided what should be heard and what shouldn’t. Then they set up a heirarchy that puts them in control with divine authority (they were not the first however, the egyptians, summerians, and many ancient cultures had rulers that were a direct link with God…including Rome!!). They (these same regular guys) then added passages about never questioning their divine authority. Sounds almost like Rome BEFORE christianity. Rome’s power was on the decline, but through this new vessel they could once again seek to control the people they had once conquered, only this time they conquered with a message of love… but the thirst for power has always been there. In other words just because your priest tells you he is right, doesn’t make it so. The church evolves which is some evidence that Catholics might not be as traditional as they think. If the church never changed there would be no “headquarters” (at least not in Rome), or cardinals, bishops, vatican councils, witch burnings, or inquisitions, not to mention no “holy” wars, celebate priests, collection plates, or crucifixes in church ( this was a torture device after all). The religion that Jesus practiced and what you do every sunday are different, Jesus was after all, a JEW. The earliest Christians were actually reformist Jews, the main difference was they no longer offered living sacrifice because Jesus replaced that with what you call communion…although (and I may be mistaken) I don’t recall reading that his body ACTUALLY is the bread, and surely there is no scientific evidence to support the transubstantiation…it is still unlevened bread. I think his dying was the sacrifice and you commemorate that with “communion”
(“communion” appears in quotes because we are talking about two different things but it is the same basic action).

 

[Churchmouse]

Obviously some here cannot stay within the frame of the thread, but would rather obfuscate the issue. For the record, I don’t believe that the church gave us Scripture. If that were true, we would have the same canon, but we obviously don’t. If that were true, the Reformers wouldn’t have wasted their time going over these same Scriptures. If that were true, the Church would have had unity in what comprised the canon, but obviously there were two predominant views, one which didn’t believe the Apocrypha to be inspired.

Scripture is “God-breathed.” It finds it’s origins in God and isn’t dependent on Rome to figure it out for everyone. Obviously, for 1500 years, one could disagree with what constituted canon without any reprisals. Trent just reacted to the Reformation and “infallibly” declared a canon.

I hope we can now go back to the thread .

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

1-You might want to check that last source out a little bit more. It’s very possible that you misinterpreted the meaning of “innocent” and “childlike”.
2-Have you been to www.catholic.com? If not, I’d suggest you go and look in the “Mary and the Saints” library and then go to the “Relics” tract and find out more about the Catholic teaching on the veneration of relics, that is, if you haven’t.

I’ll check it when I get a chance, but, yes that’s what he said. Is there something you wanted to point out that I missed?

I have been to the website many times, but I am familiar with the teaching from my Catholic days.

Peace,
CM

 

[Wormwood]

Scripture is “God-breathed.” It finds it’s origins in God and isn’t dependent on Rome to figure it out for everyone.

Prove that without saying ( explicitly or implied ) anything to do with infallability, or some other remark that requires me to already belive as you do. And if it is not up to Rome, then why were there books not included in the bible? Why did Rome decide what the book would and would not contain? If you believe a human being to be incapable of error, just because he told you that, then I have a bridge I want to sell you… cheap too

 

[Churchmouse]

Wormwood:

Prove that without saying ( explicitly or implied ) anything to do with infallability, or some other remark that requires me to already belive as you do.

Your premise assumes that I adhere to the notion of infallibility first and foremost, but rather I believe that God leads His own to all truth, including what is Scripture and what isn’t. Do you doubt that He can?

And if it is not up to Rome, then why were there books not included in the bible? Why did Rome decide what the book would and would not contain?

You’re assuming that Rome declared the present canon long before the Reformation. To the contrary, various views were held throughout church history and without fear of reprisal. Rome didn’t “decide” until the Reformation forced Trent to do so. Even then it was a knee-jerk reaction and nothing more. Their “infallible” declaration doesn’t mean much in light of this, but then I don’t believe that the church is infallible anyway.

If you believe a human being to be incapable of error, just because he told you that, then I have a bridge I want to sell you… cheap too

You can keep the bridge. I believe that all humans are fallible, including the Church considering that it is made of fallible beings. All the more why we cast are all before God. If you assert that the church is then I have a bridge to sell you

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Pax:

Perhaps our non-Catholic brothers and sisters could ask themselves why they only call the mother of Jesus, “Mary.” We, as Catholics, call her “blessed” and we know that “all generations” will do so. I cannot help but believe that non-Catholics do not call her blessed because of bias and an over reaction to Catholic teaching.

This is rather misrepresentative of what Protestants believe regarding Mary. We do believe she is “blessed amongst women” and we do call her “blessed.” Why? Because she was chosen to give birth to Christ. Any women would be called “blessed” if they were given this calling. However, we don’t agree that the word “blessed” assumes what Catholics impose on her. This is what most Protestants react to and not the obvious, that is the difference.

Earlier in the post you stated:

Since Protestants frequently find Marian teachings to be offensive, they often take overly aggressive steps in attacking them and force the Catholic to become even more aggressive in their defense.

The knife cuts both ways .

Peace,
CM