To Non-Catholics: Miracles and Holy Relics

[Churchmouse]

Little Mary:

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

Thank you for the “hope” but I really doubt if that would ever happen . As for my conversion story, no I’ve never posted it. It’s too long a story and involves many years of trial and error. Considering that I don’t like sensationalism, and realizing that my story can be judged as such, I refrain. The only thing I can say is that, contrary to Newman, I went deep in history and became a Protestant . Go figure

Peace,
CM

 

[Little_Mary]

Churchmouse is very interested in keeping this thread on topic and well he should be.

I think it would be a good idea to start a new thread on the origins of the bible - or at least refer Churchmouse to some of the existing ones.

Churchmouse, with all due respect and charity, just because you made a conscious decision to leave this wonderful faith, that does not make you right.

 

[Churchmouse]

Little Mary:

Churchmouse is very interested in keeping this thread on topic and well he should be.

Thank you for your support

I think it would be a good idea to start a new thread on the origins of the bible - or at least refer Churchmouse to some of the existing ones.

There are various ones already. When I get the time I’ll throw in my two cents.

Churchmouse, with all due respect and charity, just because you made a conscious decision to leave this wonderful faith, that does not make you right.

And with the same respect and charity, it doesn’t make the Church right either.

Peace,
CM

 

[Little_Mary]

Churchmouse:

Thank you for your support

There are various ones already. When I get the time I’ll throw in my two cents.

And with the same respect and charity, it doesn’t make the Church right either.

Peace,
CM

You’re welcome

I’d love to hear your two cents

Yes it does. Jesus promised that it would be.

 

[Churchmouse]

Little Mary:

Yes it does. Jesus promised that it would be.

I hate to be so persistant (an annoying habit of mine ) but “Where?”

Peace,
CM

 

[Wormwood]

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?

Odd that you accuse me of obsfucating the issue, yet you answer a question with a question and the initial question asked IF and not CAN. Sure an all powerful God could inspire a text or make them fall from the sky or whatever, but when many religions make that same claim it loses merit. Not to mention that many stories from OT were borrowed from summerian culture, so were in fact not divinely inspired unless this inspiration was to rip off the epic of gilgamesh or any other of the numerous summerian texts and stories the hebrews “borrowed” from.

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

I am refering to when the stories were initially compiled (in latin which seems strange for a semetic people with their own language) and when it was compiled and Rome appointed themselves the head of the church, any number of literary liberties could be taken. At least you seem rational about infallability, these same fallable men shaped your church over many years.

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

Is this code or something? I don’t get your meaning.

 

[MariaG]

Churchmouse,
When you refer to Catholic worship of MaryYou say at lot of things like “it seems like, it appears, I see, I don’t buy into” . I can’t *look at *a person and decide they have passed over from devotion to Mary into worship in their heart by their actions. I’m sure there are some. But I do believe a person can wear every Marion item there is out there, pray the Rosary several times a day, go to sites where there are Marion apparitions and still put God first in worship and NOT pass over the line of devotion to Mary. Our Blessed Mother comes to point people to her son.

posted by Churchmouse
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

The OT and NT canon was decided in 382AD. It was reexamined during the reformation, and reaffirmed.
catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

 

[MariaG]

Infallible Church

John 16:13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth;…

1 Tim 3:15 but is I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the **house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. **
There are more verses telling us the Holy Spirit will guide us in truth. That the apostles speak with the Holy Spirit’s voice, that the church must be one, that the church is authoritative, apostolic and perpetual. All of these taken together give us an infallible church made up of fallible human being. The teachings of the church on faith and morals are infallible. But once again, it goes off topic. But really, it all comes down to the authority of the church, the infallibility of the church I guess. That is why most discussions go to this point.

But Scripture has been given that supports the postion of the Catholic church on relics and on infallibility. You I’m sure will choose to disagree with the interpretatin of the verses I cited. Which brings me to the reason why I came to the Catholic Church. There is an ultimate truth. I choose the one truth as defined for 2000 years by the Catholic church instead of the 30,000 plus “truths” taught for 500 or less years by anyone else. Clearly personal interpretation of Scripture leads to disunity, which Scripture warns us against.

Romans 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.

There has been no bigger division in Christianity than the “Reformation”.

 

[Churchmouse]

Wormwood:

Odd that you accuse me of obsfucating the issue, yet you answer a question with a question and the initial question asked IF and not CAN. Sure an all powerful God could inspire a text or make them fall from the sky or whatever, but when many religions make that same claim it loses merit. Not to mention that many stories from OT were borrowed from summerian culture, so were in fact not divinely inspired unless this inspiration was to rip off the epic of gilgamesh or any other of the numerous summerian texts and stories the hebrews “borrowed” from.

I didn’t single you out as the “obfuscator.” Sorry if it came out that way, but I was just reacting to seeing the same “Shannin” quote three times over. Didn’t realize you left a follow-up after the third post-up.

I think you assumed that I was Catholic when you ask me:

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

My answer should’ve been: I’m not Catholic therefore I don’t believe that men are infallible. I believe all human beings are capable of error. It comes with the territory.

Is this code or something? I don’t get your meaning.

I assumed you were a Catholic and anticipated a response to the nature of “God promised that the Church cannot err.” From a Scriptural level I can’t find any such promise. Therefore the bridge was for sale .

Bottom line: We were talking past each other

Peace,
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

MariaG:

Churchmouse,
When you refer to Catholic worship of MaryYou say at lot of things like “it seems like, it appears, I see, I don’t buy into” . I can’t *look at *a person and decide they have passed over from devotion to Mary into worship in their heart by their actions. I’m sure there are some. But I do believe a person can wear every Marion item there is out there, pray the Rosary several times a day, go to sites where there are Marion apparitions and still put God first in worship and NOT pass over the line of devotion to Mary. Our Blessed Mother comes to point people to her son.

Maria,

I think this comes down to our relative experiences. You don’t view devotion to Mary as hindering what is rightfully God’s, but I do. You don’t see the obsessive emphasis many put upon Mary, but I do. You don’t see how an apparition can point “someone to Christ” yet command a devotion that is superior to Christ (words vs. actions), but I do. For all that Catholics state regarding the differences between devotion and worship, there seems to be no difference between the two, but again, it comes down to our relative experiences. I saw it as a Catholic and continue to see this type of “devotion” today.

The OT and NT canon was decided in 382AD. It was reexamined during the reformation, and reaffirmed.
catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

It’s not as cut and dry as you may think it is, but I’ll refrain from commentary. <<<“Relics”…must stick with the "relics… :ehh:>>>

 

[Churchmouse]

MariaG:

Infallible Church

John 16:13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth;…

Not a promise that the Church would be infallible.

1 Tim 3:15 but is I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the **house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. **

Again, not a promise that the Church would be infallible.

There are more verses telling us the Holy Spirit will guide us in truth.

You used the word “us” which I can agree with. God leads His own to truth (1Jn.2:20-27) without reliance on the teachings of others.

That the apostles speak with the Holy Spirit’s voice, that the church must be one, that the church is authoritative, apostolic and perpetual.

It was Christ and the Apostle’s hope that we would be one, but it didn’t take long before error crept in.

All of these taken together give us an infallible church made up of fallible human being. The teachings of the church on faith and morals are infallible. But once again, it goes off topic. But really, it all comes down to the authority of the church, the infallibility of the church I guess. That is why most discussions go to this point.

Again, I don’t see where you draw the “infallibility” from any of this.

But Scripture has been given that supports the postion of the Catholic church on relics and on infallibility.

To an extent as discussed earlier.

You I’m sure will choose to disagree with the interpretatin of the verses I cited. Which brings me to the reason why I came to the Catholic Church. There is an ultimate truth. I choose the one truth as defined for 2000 years by the Catholic church instead of the 30,000 plus “truths” taught for 500 or less years by anyone else. Clearly personal interpretation of Scripture leads to disunity, which Scripture warns us against.

I would say that the Catholic church of yore isn’t the Catholic church of today, considering Roman Catholic distinctives (purgatory, Marian doctrines and dogmas, etc.) which weren’t found in the earliest of church history. As for 25,000, 28,000, 30,000, etc. fallacious denominations claimed by Catholics, I would point you to this article and it’s follow-up. Even though it is irrelevant to this thread, you keep introducing new issues. <<“Relics”… think “relics” >>

Romans 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.

There has been no bigger division in Christianity than the “Reformation”.

Well, at least no bigger division to Roman Catholicism. Note that Paul admonishes the Church to oppose those who teach contrary to the doctrines they’ve learned. Are Roman distinctives what the brethren learned? Not from what I’ve seen. Thus, there was opposition; thus, there was a Reformation.

Peace,
CM

 

[MariaG]

Relics. Yes I too can see how far the discussion has strayed. But this is where most discussions come to. Catholics show you where we get our beliefs from the Bible, and you say no you have interpreted it wrong, or built a whole doctrine around etc. So it comes back to church authority and infallibility. And whether or not ther are 30,000 or 200 it is still not one. When a church abandons Sacred Tradition along with Scripture it brings us eventually to Oneness pentecostals who deny the Trinity and use Scripture to do so.

So think relics. Catholics base it off of Scripture previously shown and Sacred Tradition. You are free to make your own interpretation of Scripture, disagree with the Catholic interpretation. But please, do not deny the Catholic belief is from Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
God Bless
Maria

 

[Toni]

To Church Mouse,

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought this was a Catholic web site. Are you simply here to debate and learn or are you are to convert to your own faith. By looking at your answers and your bible quotes it reminds me of many Protestants I have encountered in life.

If you read the entire Bible not the King James remade edition you may find more of the answers. Instead of the few quotes you use.

St Paul also said our faith comes from Tradition did you find that?

My favorite from all of you is “By faith alone you are saved”
But many of you fail to read the entire context of what Saint Paul was saying and doing. Or continue reading Saint James possibly “Faith without works is dead”

May I suggest you purchase a Catholic Bible and you will find the truth and many of our teachings on Purgatory etc. Not the shortened version, to throw around a few bible quotes with.

 

[Churchmouse]

MariaG:

So it comes back to church authority and infallibility.

So, basically, it comes down to two Roman distinctives?

And whether or not ther are 30,000 or 200 it is still not one. When a church abandons Sacred Tradition along with Scripture it brings us eventually to Oneness pentecostals who deny the Trinity and use Scripture to do so.

Well, Peter warned that there will be “unlearned and unstable” people who “pervert” Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. Logically, this would mean that those who are “learned and stable” *will * be able to understand it. So, are these folks “Protestant”? Definitely not! The Reformers were all Trinitarians. The catholic church had its heretics throughout its history and some were denying the Trinity way before the Reformation, such as the Arians in the 4th century.

So think relics. Catholics base it off of Scripture previously shown and Sacred Tradition. You are free to make your own interpretation of Scripture, disagree with the Catholic interpretation. But please, do not deny the Catholic belief is from Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Again, I don’t deny the viability of relics within the Biblical frame, but Catholics have taken it further. This is where I find my disagreement.

Peace,
CM

 

[MariaG]

Well, Peter warned that there will be “unlearned and unstable” people who “pervert” Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. Logically, this would mean that those who are “learned and stable” *will *be able to understand it. So, are these folks “Protestant”? Definitely not! The Reformers were all Trinitarians. The catholic church had its heretics throughout its history and some were denying the Trinity way before the Reformation, such as the Arians in the 4th century.

Are the Oneness Pentescostals Protestant? No. But that is what comes from Sola Scriptura. There have heretics throughout history, but with a recognition that Christ left a definitive authority behind to rule in His place, those heresies were dealt with. Where in the Bible is that authority? See Acts 15:6-30. Here the new church made a new rule that was binding on Christians. Christ gave the apostles the right to bind and loose, that is to make rules. Why would the church no longer have this authority? Once Luther became his own authority, denying Scripture that he choose not to believe, that is what ultimately has now led to Solo Scriptura and Oneness pentecostals.

But if I believe that Catholics took the relics too far, why should I not believe the Trinity went too far? Oneness Pentecostals can go back in history and claim these things have been believed for over a thousand years. They could make every claim about the Trinity that you have about relics. Why are they wrong but you are right?

 

[Churchmouse]

MariaG:

Are the Oneness Pentescostals Protestant? No. But that is what comes from Sola Scriptura.

Oh? Did the Arians follow Sola Scriptura??

There have heretics throughout history, but with a recognition that Christ left a definitive authority behind to rule in His place, those heresies were dealt with. Where in the Bible is that authority? See Acts 15:6-30. Here the new church made a new rule that was binding on Christians.

And, of course, this were the Apostles who Christ appointed for this purpose. When the Church was met with opposition later, they always went back to what these Apostles taught and didn’t act as an authority within themselves. That is the difference.

Christ gave the apostles the right to bind and loose, that is to make rules.

I don’t see “rule-making” in the context of “binding and loosing.”

Why would the church no longer have this authority?

The Church has authority in enforcing that which the Apostles taught, but obviously, there are those who claim Apostolic traditions which can never be verified (the Assumption of Mary comes to mind), thus the Apostolic tangibles (Scripture) becomes all the more relevant.

Once Luther became his own authority, denying Scripture that he choose not to believe, that is what ultimately has now led to Solo Scriptura and Oneness pentecostals.

You mean Sola Scriptura. Solo Scriptura is the belief that everything is in Scripture which doesn’t quite jibe with Sola Scriptura. I disagree, the belief has been around longer than Sola Scriptura and wasn’t strictly based on Scripture.

But if I believe that Catholics took the relics too far, why should I not believe the Trinity went too far?

Because the Trinity is a logical extension of Scripture that can be verified through many passages (Gen.1:26; Deut.6:4; Lk.3:22, etc.). The Biblical passages regarding relics don’t so much as allude to the depths which Catholics have taken them.

Oneness Pentecostals can go back in history and claim these things have been believed for over a thousand years. They could make every claim about the Trinity that you have about relics.

For them to do that they would have appeal to the Apostles and their teachings. Since none can be found in Scripture and there are no known teachings that can be attributed to the Apostles regarding this, they would have to “tweek” Scripture to fit their theology.

Why are they wrong but you are right?

You realize you must answer the same question, correct? I make no claims to be wrong or right, but realize that man is capable of error as are man-led institutions. So I rely on the only tangible Apostolic teachings there are, the Scriptures, and I study them fully knowing and trusting in the illumination of the Holy Spirit, that He will guide to all truth.

Peace,
CM

 

[Shoshana]

Wormwood:

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.

Incorrect Wormwood! The carbon-dating on the Shroud has been proven to be wrong due to a build-up of bacteria and protein that acts like a veneer, making the Shroud appear younger than it was. This also happened on a Mayan artifact that was thought to be a fake because of its high veneer and after scaping, it was found to be many thousand years old. The hoax was not a hox after all. It is known as the Itzamma Tun. A bacterial build-up, forming a shiny bioplastic coating, caused ‘experts’ seriously to mis-date this. It also happened with an Egyptian mummy, which was obvious to be thousands of years old, but the shroud that covered it was carbon-dated as thousound years younger. Same conclusion.

It was concluded that the carbon-dating was flawed because no scientist has put into realm of science the possible build-up of bacteria that has accumulated over the many years. Which would make sense due to the handling of the Shroud and the blood that the Shroud is saturated with.

They cannot replicate the Shroud in all of their experiments with all of the technology known to man today. That was also a failure of the scientists. The anatomically correct portrayal of a dead crucified man and the natural blood flows of said corpse is exquisite in its rendering. There would not have been knowledge of this at the time of the false carbon-dating of said Shroud. The linen is saturated with pollen from many countries, due to its travels throughout the centuries. But, the many pollens and bits of flowers were mainly from Jerusalem and its surrounding. The limestone dust found in Jerusalem only is also found deeply inbedded in its fibres. Where the feet meet at the bottom of the Shroud, dirt has been found from the back of the corpse. No forger would even of thought of embeddding that because it is not visible to the naked eye.

Overall, experiements still need to be made on the Shroud. They also need to dissolve the bioplastic coating to get a true rendition of its date. This has not been successfully done yet. Many questions have been answered with great professional care, but there are still some that need to be answered. Without the OK from the vatica, it will take some time.

The carbon-dating in itself was proven not fool-proof. You can read the detail of this in the book ‘The Blood and the Shroud’ by ian Wilson. Highly recommended. It was written in 1998.

And here is alittle tid-bit of news. If you are aware of icons, a lot of them with its umminstake characteristics, seem to point to the Shroud. But this is a whole different topic.

Blessings,
Shoshana

 

[RolandJS]

Andrew Larkoski:

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?

Since you asked, I’ll give an answer

As an ambassador amongst the non-align (meaning not formerly one of the Big3), I have the highest regard and respect for the ambassadors of Catholicism. They adhere faithfully and clearly to the Faith of Catholicism. I salute their Flag!
I simply ask the ambassadors of other Faiths to regard me likewise.

In DCF (Ray’s board), this kinda sorta thing (X asking Y about X) comes up from time to time.

Perhaps this might help:
I, a Vulcan, believing and practicing Vulcan Things, do not need to ask the Mim Bari, who believe and practice Mim Bari Things,
for confirmation of the Vulcan world. A Vulcan believes and practices Vulcan Things, a Mim Bari believes and practices Mim Bari Things – if same respect themselves and respect others, there is no need to ask for challenges and then defend the challenged asked.

Roland
AmbassadorMan

 

[Wormwood]

The carbon-dating in itself was proven not fool-proof. You can read the detail of this in the book ‘The Blood and the Shroud’ by ian Wilson. Highly recommended. It was written in 1998.

My source is from 2003. It cited The University of Arizona (which does most carbon dating for U.S. artifacts) along with a couple of Ivy league schools and a couple of European universities. They place the shroud at sometime closer to the middle ages. Not that it is a fake, it just isn’t the cloth in which christ was wrapped. I can try to find the name or catalogue number for you if you wish. The same source also mentioned that the church refuses these findings.

It was concluded that the carbon-dating was flawed because no scientist has put into realm of science the possible build-up of bacteria that has accumulated over the many years. Which would make sense due to the handling of the Shroud and the blood that the Shroud is saturated with.

The only way the shroud as a relic could prove anything about the churches validity, would be if we used the blood to clone Jesus, then we could ask him ourselves

 

[MariaG]

originally posted by ChurchMouse

You realize you must answer the same question, correct? I make no claims to be wrong or right, but realize that man is capable of error as are man-led institutions. So I rely on the only tangible Apostolic teachings there are, the Scriptures, and I study them fully knowing and trusting in the illumination of the Holy Spirit, that He wilI guide to all truth.

**

I have had “Restored Saints” (a person that believes in the book of Mormon but is not Mormon) tell me the same thing. That the Holy Spirit has guided them to all truth. I have had AoG who speak tongues who say the Spirit led them. I had a Nazarene pastor say tongues are from Satan and the Spirit led him. How can a person trust whose spirit the illumination is coming from when very God fearing men teach exactly opposite things? All can not have been led by the Holy Spirit.

**