Follow
According to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, everything that is to be known and taught by the Church is to be found in the original “Deposit of Faith,” beyond which, “no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Catechism, p. 66).
As we have discussed elsewhere, Mary is alleged to have appeared many times and in many places over the last 2,000 years. During those appearances, the visions of Mary leave behind explicit instructions and other information: one provided a design for a medal for a particular form of devotion; another provided the design for an image to be venerated; others have provided private messages for the pope; and others have left behind prophecies of things to come. These visions of Mary, or what we call “apparitions of Mary,” have very much to say. “However,” warns the catechism, “They do not belong … to the deposit of faith“:
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.(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 67)
Despite this clear teaching from the Catechism, many Roman Catholics draw from the teachings of the visions of Mary “to improve or complete” their knowledge of revelation, relying on the apparitions to do something that is clearly “not their role.”
For example, Dr. Taylor Marshall, a former Protestant turned Roman Catholic apologist, recently published a booklet called, God’s Birthday: Why Christ Was Born on December 25 and Why It Matters. In addition to his many arguments from history and Scripture, Dr. Marshall also draws from several visions of Mary to provide evidence for the dating of Jesus’ birthday. What was Mary thinking the moment before Gabriel arrived? Dr. Marshall tells us: “According to the visions of Saint Elizabeth of Hungary [1207-1231], the Blessed Virgin Mary was praying for the coming of the Messiah at the very moment the Angel Gabriel arrived” (Marshall, God’s Birthday, p. 16). When did Mary first realize that she was conceived without sin? Dr. Marshall tells us, this time citing the vision of Mary to Saint Mechtilde of Hackeborn:
Regarding this angelic salutation of Gabriel, the Blessed Virgin Mary herself related the following information to Saint Mechtilde of Hackeborn (died in 1298): “My daughter, I want you to know that no one can please me more by saying the salutation which the Most Adorable Trinity sent to me and by which He raised me to the dignity of Mother of God. By the word ‘Ave,’ which is the name Eve, I learned that in His infinite power God has preserved me from all sin and its attendant misery which the first woman had been subject to.” (Marshall, p. 17)
Until these visions of Mary, nobody “knew” what Mary was thinking and doing at the moments leading up to the Annunciation. Now we “know.” Until these visions, nobody “knew” when Mary first realized that she had been conceived without sin. Now we “know.”
Dr. Marshall’s analysis of revelation from the apparitions is not limited to his attempts to understand ancient history. When considering Pope Benedict’s historic decision to step down last year, Marshall speculated that Pope Benedict had received direction directly from the Apparition of Mary—a speculation based in no small part on the fact that Benedict’s announcement occurred on the feast of the famous apparition of Mary at Lourdes (1858). Marshall writes,
… the announcement of His Holiness’ abdication on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes may indicate a Marian origin to his decision. … I believe that Pope Benedict would have never resigned unless he was told to do so through a heavenly command. I believe that Jesus and Mary told His Holiness to make this historic decision and announcement.
Another example of this use of visions to complete our knowledge of revelation is Fr. Thomas Livius, author of The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries. The purpose of his book was, in Fr. Livius’ words, to provide the teachings of the Fathers as impartially as possible:
I determined … that people generally might read the Fathers’ own words, and then judge for themselves. For myself, endeavouring to be as impartial as possible, I have formed the clear conviction, that, saving a very few differences on points of lesser moment, the Fathers of the first six centuries unanimously held Our Blessed Lady in the same high appreciation, as she has been held in by Catholics of all subsequent ages. (p. xx)
Fr. Livius was satisfied to let the Fathers speak for themselves, for they were merely fulfilling “the duty of transmitting the Apostolic doctrine in its integrity and purity to those who should come after in every generation.” (Livius, p. 6).
Well and good. Until some of the Fathers spoke ill of Mary. One of the “very few differences on points of lesser moment” was on that “minor” issue of whether or not Jesus’ mother was indeed sinless. Points of lesser moment, indeed! Origen believed that the sword of Simeon’s prophecy in Luke 2:35 indicated that Mary herself would doubt, and do so sinfully (Origen, Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7). Basil, too, concluded that even Mary, “shall some doubt reach” (Basil, Letter CCLX.8-9), and Cyril of Alexandria had Mary,
not knowing at all that He would be more mighty than death, and rise again from the grave. Nor mayest thou wonder that the Virgin knew this not, when we shall find even the holy Apostles themselves with little faith thereupon (Cyril, Sermons on Luke, Sermon IV).
Mary a sinner? Doubt had reached Jesus’ sinless mother? Mary not even sure Jesus would rise from the dead? How can this be? Not to worry. When the Deposit of Faith is lacking, a private revelation from a visionary can always fill in the gaps.
When resolving this dilemma, it occurred (erroneously) to Fr. Livius that Jesus Himself had stumbled into unbelief and doubt about the very purpose of His mission on earth. And if Jesus can doubt His own Father without sin, then surely Mary can doubt Jesus without sin. On the authority of Sister Emerich’s vision of the passion in 1823, Livius asserted that “doubt and anxiety, … awoke in the mind of the Lord, and he asked this terrible question: ‘What is the benefit of this sacrifice?'” (Livius, p. 160n). Problem solved. Jesus doubted His Father, so it is possible for Mary to doubt without sin. It is noteworthy that Livius would sooner have Jesus stumble into unbelief than have Mary be seen as a sinner in need of His forgiveness. That alone tells us something about the trappings of Mariolatry.
But more importantly, the Scriptures tell us that Jesus had always known why He came: “I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15). He knew He would “lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Moments before entering the Garden of Gethsemane, He said His blood must be “shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). Then he prayed the famous prayer, asking three times that if it be His Father’s will, this cup pass Him by, but nevertheless, “not My will, but Thine be done.” There is nothing in the Scriptures about “doubt” and Jesus wondering what purpose His death might serve. Anguish, yes, but it was an informed anguish, for He knew very well why He must die.
It mattered not to Fr. Livius what the Scriptures say about Jesus’ anguish in Gethsemane. What mattered was that the Deposit of Faith was giving him conflicting data, and the private revelation gave him the answer he needed and very much wanted to find. Thus did Livius, like Marshall, use private revelations to “improve or complete” the definitive revelation of the Word of God, and to inform the “Deposit of Faith.”
These occasions of relying on apparitions and private revelation are not isolated incidents. In fact it is common practice in Rome. We note briefly here that Mel Gibson relied heavily on Sister Emerich and another visionary, Mary of Agreda, to fill in some gaps in the narrative of The Passion—gaps left unfilled by the Scriptures, but helpfully populated by private revelation from visions and apparitions. In a follow-up post we will discuss the role the apparitions of Mary played in the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception Dogma, the Infallibility Dogma and the Assumption Dogma. That Roman Catholics not only believe that apparitions can influence popes to proclaim new doctrines, but that they actually hope they will, is evidenced from Dr. Taylor Marshall’s comments after his speculation on the cause of Benedict’s abdication.
After speculating that Mary had asked Benedict to step down, Marshall then went on to propose that Benedict had received information directly from Mary about her title as “Mediatrix of all Graces.” Back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict had rejected the title “Mediatrix of All Graces,” dismissing those who addressed her that way as “theologically unenlightened.” No council had ever assigned that title to her, and Ratzinger did not want to step outside the safety of the Deposit of Faith. (Heim, Joseph Ratzinger: Life in the Church and Living Theology, p. 401, fn. 400).
Enter the apparition of Mary. Dr. Marshall explains that, in addition to asking Benedict to step down, Mary may have also instructed him that she is Mediatrix of All Graces, and that it is time for him to embrace that title, too:
…there is a suggestion that Pope Benedict XVI received a special locution or apparition from Our Lady about the Catholic Church and gave him explicit permission to step down from the Holy See. On the day His Holiness announced his resignation, the Pope publicly referred to Mary as the “Mediatrix of All Graces.” … Many other news sources and blogs jumped onto this story because it signals something new in Pope Benedict’s thought. … It seems now that the Holy Father has reversed course and has made Mediatrix of All Graces part of his papal vocabulary.
The significance of this is not lost on Marshall. “This is a major event in the life of the Catholic Church,” he says. “What would happen in our era if a Pope declared a Fifth Marian Dogma?”
The other four Marian Dogmas are
- that she is the “Mother of God”
- that she remained a “Perpetual Virgin,”
- that she is the “Immaculate Conception,” and
- that she was assumed bodily into heaven when she left her earthly life (“the Assumption”)
The Fifth Marian Dogma is that Mary is “the Spiritual Mother of all Peoples, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces and Advocate.” Advocates of the Fifth Marian Dogma believe that such a declaration will be the “fulfillment of the great Marian scriptural prophecy, ‘All generations will call me blessed’ (Luke 1:42),” and will introduce a bright new era of renewal under the banner of Rome’s “Mary.” We are not convinced.
We—like Gibson, Marshall and Livius—believe these visions of Mary are actual visions—not merely the product of hyperactive imaginations. We believe the apparitions are manifestations of spiritual beings that are seen by, communicate with, and sometimes touch the visionaries. However, what is appearing to and revealing information to these visionaries, is not Mary at all. The visions are teaching a false gospel that has Jesus and His Father angry at us, and Mary standing in the way as our mediatrix, suffering in our place to expiate our sins, holding back their wrath. The visions are teaching a false gospel of Jesus imprisoned and impotent apart from the consent, nay, the command, of His mother or Rome’s priests.
That is not the Gospel of an omnipotent God Who governs all things after the counsel of His own will (Ephesians 1:11), who freely gives us all things (Romans 8:32), Who as a Man laid down His own life and took it up again of his own power (John 10:18), and who made peace through the blood of His cross (Colossians 1:20), and having cleansed us of our sins, “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Hebrews 1:3).
In fact, the visions of Mary hate the true gospel, and despise Jesus’ omnipotence, magnificence, power, glory and the worship He is rightly due from all creation, and indeed they seek to be worshiped in His place. They especially despise His once-for-all sacrifice for his sheep, and they tell all who will listen that it did not work and that God is still deeply offended at His people because they have not sufficiently honored His mother, and that He still has not been reconciled to His people at all.
In brief, these visions are demonic, and despite the Catechism‘s claims to the contrary, Rome relies on private revelation from them for the instruction of the flock—yes, even for the instruction of her popes.
Tim, preaches the truth. As Luther said the Pope and his religion won’t permit men to be saved. And this is the tragedy of Rome. The Marion ego gone wild will be satan’s way of wooing people into hell with the worship of the Mother of Jesus. God is a jealous God it says in Isaiah he shares his glory with no one, not even his mother, and he is clear when he says “woman what does this have to do with you.” I take offense to anyone who would profane the name of my dear sister in the Lord by deifying her. She deserves better than this. She deserves to be treated like the humble repentive servant she was. She considered herself a bond slave and a humble servant of her Lord. He shed his blood on the cross, not her’s.
I find it highly suspicious that Tim keeps writing about Marian Apparitions. No Catholic is required to believe in them:
I find it highly suspicious that Tim keeps writing about Marian Apparitions. No Catholic is required to believe them. They are not Dogma. They are considered “private revelations”, even if approved by the Church as authentic. We are only bound to believe in public revelation that came from Jesus Christ and has been passed down to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition – preserved by the Magisterium of the Church.
Thank you, Debbie. I’m glad you wrote.
I was raised with a devotion to the visions of Mary—Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc…—so it is a special interest of mine, and that is why I write about them. There are other reasons, but that is a significant one.
You are right that no Catholic is required to believe the visions of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that even with formal church approval of an apparition, it is still acceptable to “refuse assent to such revelations, and turn from them, provided this is done with suitable modesty, for good reasons, and without contempt” (De servorum Dei beatificatione, book 2, ch. 32, no. 11 ; book 3, ch. 53, no. 15).
But it is actually not so simple. As we shall explore next week, one is not really free to reject the apparitions if one is at the same time required to believe the infallible doctrines the apparitions influenced. Further, if one is free to reject them, then in what way are we to understand Pope John XXIII’s conviction that Popes as a matter of duty are required to commend the apparitions to the faithful (Acta mariana Johannis XXIII, radio message of February 18, 1959)? In what way are you free to reject the apparition at Lourdes if the Pope says he has a duty to commend it to you?
Just food for thought,
Tim
Do people see how misleading and clever this is?
Reminds me of another clever use of information in an idylic setting, “No, God doesn’t really mean that, he means this …….”
Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
Tim, When one gets their theology truly sliced up they don’t argue the merits but they question the motive and integrity o the person who challenges their doctrine. I apologize for Debbie. She is not used to men who know more than her because she is in the RC. So she kicks screams, says a 2000 year old Exorcism prayer over you and moves slog. You are a man of integrity who has given an honest and brilliant challenge to the idolatry worship of Mary. I want to encourage you to bring the mother load article on how Satan is using this to destroy the doctrine of the church. And you have started this. I would encourage you to write a book fighting the idea of the idolatry of Mary. It is needed in this time, and you are the man. Many of us have long known that Jesus has been relegated to a member of the congregation in the RC and Marry has replaced him as savior. This is the work of the devil.
Kevin and Tim,
I don’t worship Mary and don’t know anyone who does.
But I sure do ask her to pray for you two. I love it when people pray for me to see the light (but not an apparition).
Kevin,
You asked us all of three years ago, “what is the difference between Protestants and Catholics, is it the Eucharist?” and in shock my husband, said graciously, “well, yes basically.” So as not to embaress you.
So forgive me when you start telling me about Catholicism that I don’t pay ANY attention. Learning it from John MacArthur is like going to President Obama to find out about great Christian Theology.
Tim,
I get where you are going and that you are using this logic to build a case to prove what you perceive to be error.
I just got done witnesseing the trial of Our Lady of America for 6 weeks in Indianapolis and saw first hand what lawyers do and what lengths they go to build a case. It begins with planting seeds of authentic truth and trust in the witness, or tearing this down in a witness. I’ll stick with the witnesses of the past 2000 years, not an unhappy ex-Catholic who is making some extra $$ selling what some people want to hear.
By the way, we won! Much to your dismay, this apparition in Rome, Indiana is coming your way.
Peace.
Thank you, Debbie,
The apparition of Mary in Rome, Indiana, is an example of the way Jesus is diminished as an impotent savior, and an example of an apparition providing additional information outside the “Deposit of Faith.”
“Jesus’ ” words to Mildred are of the same species as the rest, projecting an impotent Jesus unable to save whom He will:
These are not the words of the Supreme Lord of the universe, Who holds all things together by the Word of His power (Hebrews 1:3) and governs all things after the counsel of His own will (Ephesians 1:11).
Are we really to believe, Debbie, that Joseph was cleansed of original sin immediately after his conception? Our Lady of America offers the Holy Family as an example of a family without sin, including Joseph. Do you really hold that Joseph never sinned, either?
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Tim,
One of the greatest gifts we were given as human beings, (both a blessing and a curse), is freedom of choice. God says, “Choose Life”(Deuteronomy 30:19) … if it were not necessary to choose, why would He ask us to choose? Why not force all suffering humanity, doomed humanity, mankind choosing death over life … why not just take that shortcut and force them all to heaven?
Would that be the same husband that flew off the handle with me at my mom’s house and told me he couldn’t discuss it because he dint know the bible. I think you mean i was nice not to embarrass him. Like i said even my wife knows who you are now. Just an insecure girl looking for significance.
Nope that wasn’t my husband that flew off the handle. My husband was the one who was very gracious and told you in all humility that he couldn’t discuss it because he didn’t know scripture as well as you and hadn’t been asked those things before.
That is my husband and he is good and honest as the day is long.
Is that why you balled your husband out all the way back to the hotel for his behavior. Memory lapse huh.
Debbie,
Ever notice in all the monster flicks, Dr. Frankenstein always has a henchmen named Igor. He an oafish brute who does the doctor’s grunt work. The suave and urbane doctor is above soiling his hands with digging up graves but simple minded Igor has no qualms about strangling children or stealing bodies from morgues.
Tim is an author of books. He researches the Fathers. He has a degree.
Then we have Kevin. Kevin makes the lewd remarks about St. Joseph, the insults the ridicule, etc.that Tim is above saying. Tim pretends not to offend. Igor Kevin delights in it.
Kevin fawns all over the good doctor but Tim seems to almost ignore the dumb henchman.
Remember though how the movie always ends. One of them destroys the other.
Ha!
Okay Tim and Kevin, I was just having some fun.
Seriously though, you guys should back off this Mary hate.
One of the drawbacks of living here is that I can’t listen to Catholic Answers live but must use the archived show a day later. I just heard an hour ago the show for Tuesday, April 1.a caller who asked about Rev 12 and the devil’s enmity with Mary. Click on Catholic Answers, then, radio calendar , then Tim Staples’ Q& A. After 7 minutes of yacking, the call comes in you need to hear.
Guys, I am warning you. You are playing with danger. You are being part of the devil’s seed.
For your the good of your immortal souls, cool it.
Tim, you especially. If you fear you have already gone to far, ask for help from Blessed Bartolo Longo. He blasphemed as you have, even worshiped the devil, hut he got back to the Faith via the Rosary.
Kevin, You are really a drain on my patience. I have answered, more than once, this,
” God it says in Isaiah he shares his glory with no one, not even his mother”.
You ask the same questions, make the same assertion over and over for weeks. Do you have a reading disability? You either don’t read what people post or you don’t comprehend. Over on Stellman’s blog, your assertion that we think Jesus is crucified today has been answered so many times it is ridiculous.
I swear, I am starting to worry that you are thick as a post. I hate kicking someone for being dumb as they can’t help it. If you aren’t a dullard, you are diabolical. Which is it?
Tim,
C’mon! How many Catholics have access to a copy of Livius at their disposal? You can assert anything and we can neither affirm or deny.
You said to Debbie, “I was raised with a devotion to the visions of Mary—Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc…—so it is a special interest of mine, and that is why I write about them. ”
You DON’T write about them! You write about obscure apparitions and writings that the average Catholic has never heard of.
Write about Guadalup, and the Aztec ‘s demonic religion that demanded human sacrifice. Expose for the readers the scientific studies that have been done on it as on the Shroud of Turin.
Write about the verified miracles at Lourdes and the testimony of atheists like Emile Zola and Alexis Carrell.
How about pumping out something on Fatima, Communism and the prophecies. You should really jump on that one as every Pope has endorsed it ( Yours truly was present when JPII came to Fatima and was also graced to attend Benedict XVI’s Mass. My wife, as part of a special group of artists and musicians, had an audience with him when he came here to Portugal. Just a little name dropping ).
By all means Tim, lets talk about miracles and apparitions.
Especially the ones you were once so devoted to.
Tim,
With your indulgence (tsk tsk ) could I help you out with your exposition of Guadalupe by telling the readers some tid -bits that you may not know?
Half way from Lisbon where I live and Madrid where my brother in law lives, is the original Guadalupe. It is not in Mexico as most people think. You have to detour off the freeway and drive up into the hills to a little village where there is a church where the black Madonna of Guadalupe has been venerated since the time of the war with the moors.
When the Indian Juan Diego told the Spanish people about his visitation by Our Lady, he used an Aztec word that sounded like Guadalupe, hence the name for the shrine in Mexico City.
What the word actually meant in the dialect of Juan Diego was “Crusher of the Serpent”. ( Gen 3:15???) Should anyone travel to Mexico City and visit the ruins and pyramids they will see many stone serpents as it was one of the major demon gods the Aztecs worshiped. Even if one just rides the subway, one can see horrible stone serpents uncovered by workers while digging the metro system.
When I lived in Oregon I frequented the Trappist Abbey of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the wine country around Lafeyette. It was there that I purchased the life size poster of the miraculous image that hangs above my fireplace.
Gazing at the image produced by God of His mother, one is struck by the resemblance to the Woman of Rev 12; she is clothed with the sun, the moon is under her feet and the wings of the angel supporting her are eagles wings. She is about to give birth.
Kevin and Tim probably thing she is a goddess. Actually, she is blocking out the sun, which the Aztecs thought was a god and offered human sacrifice to. She is standing on another Aztec deity, the moon. She actually topples the evil religion of the Aztecs. But the biggest proof that she is not a goddess is her hands, They are folded in prayer. Gods don’t pray! Amen.
Folks,
After visiting one brother in law in Madrid for a few days, my wife and I sometimes drive on to Barcelona where another brother in lives at the base of the great Marian shrine of Montserrat.
But that is not what I want to tell Tim and you about. I want to tell you that midway between Madrid and Barcelona is Zaragoza, my very favorite shrine. Right off the freeway is a church built in honor of Mary’s visit to St. James, son of Zebedee BEFORE she was Assumed into heaven. It is the only place in the world that can make this claim.
There is a famous miracle attached to this shrine. There was a young man whose leg was crushed by the wheel of a manure cart. His leg had to be amputated. He spent his time begging for a living after that in the doorway of a church. One night while dreaming of Our Lady, his leg was miraculously restored through her intercession.
Before scoffing, I will tell you that on the wall of the basilica are the testimonies of the doctor who amputated the crushed leg and the worker who disposed of it. The whole town knew the young fellow before and after the miraculous happening and saw him begging alms with one leg so there is no possibility of it being a scam.
It gets better. I have a photograph of the altar of the church. Flanked on either side are two un-exploded bombs. They were dropped on the church during the Spanish Civil War by the Communists but failed to ignite. Now they are trophies to God’s protection of this shrine to His mother.
Folks, I’ve got more wonderful things to tell you about Our Lady’s involvement in the lives of people in Spain and Portugal if our host Tim doesn’t mind. ( He was once a devotee and just may be one again some day ).
More to come!
Folks, I got another great one for you!
About five hours south of Lisbon and just across the border into Spain is the Convent of La Rabida where Columbus, a great mystic and devotee of Mary, was taught by the Franciscans about the New World. It is no coincidence that Columbus ( which means Dove ) was sent on the Santa Maria to take the Gospel to the New World. Every night the great navigator would assemble his sailors on deck to sing the Salve Regina. There are many fascinating stories about the famous voyage that will make you see the hand of God directing the course of events around it. Stories you will not learn online even. Perhaps I will thrill you some of them later.
Jim,
Can I come to your house for a vacation? HA HA
I’ve been to Montserrat, Fatima, Lourdes etal……. thanks for the beautiful memories. And you are right, where to begin, where to end?
This is just dessert for the soul, but for those who haven’t been given a devotion to our Lady, through the Catholic Church our Lord Jesus Christ always gives us dessert with our Bread. His Cup runneth over with Love. Everyone is given some lovely devotion to enhance and enjoy (given joy – a fruit of the Holy Spirit) to walk this earth with. There are literally hundreds of devotions and each one is meant to deepen our prayer life.
The problem does come in, when one eats their dessert before their bread as I regretfully suspect Tim did (through no fault of his own I would imagine, being that young, someone had to be feeding him dessert). This eventually leads to sickness.
Peace.
Debbie,
Tim mentioned Mary of Agreda who was promoted by Mel Gibson as a source in the making of The Passion movie. I just clicked around but can’t find a link I gave Tim a few weeks ago that has about 30 videos on the Franciscan view of the Incarnation ( vs the Dominican ). It goes into detail on Ven. mary of Agreda’s book, “The Mystical City of God”.
Agreda is a hard drive to the north of Spain but it is worth it. At the Convent of the Immaculate Conception where the famous nun lived there is a museum of her life. Tim forgot to mention a fascination bit of information; Santa Fe, New Mexico got its name ( Holy Faith ) because when the Spanish missionaries got there, the Indians already knew the Faith and were just waiting for the padres to come and Baptize them. The astonished priests asked the Indians how it was that they had been catechized into the mysteries of the Catholic Faith. The Indians told them a nun wearing a blue habit had instructed them. It turns out that Mary of Agreda had bilocated from her convent in Spain to North America to prepare the natives for the Sacrament of Regeneration!
You know Debbie, when one ponders how an entire nation enslaved to demonic oppression or one simple peasant with a leg crushed by a manure cart are so loved by the God who numbers every hair on our head, it really take the breath away.
Seeing how Columbus was directed by God or a nun was sent miraculously to bring salvation to the Indians is proof positive that God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth ( 1 Tim 2:4).
There are two ways of looking at the world and its history. One way is to see disjointed and accidental events with no tie to bind them together. That is the way of despair.
The other way is to see the world through the eyes of Faith which says we are not accidents but have a purpose. Each one of us. God wants us in heaven more than we do ourselves. And He sends His Mother to tell us so.
Take care.
Jim, As Luther said if Im not convinced by scripture or sound judgement then it rely means nothing. You must go to the scripture and show us where Mary is referred to anything other that a sinner, a mother, a a model christian woman. Otherwise your like a tornado, just a big blowhard.You live in Willy Wonka’s world of” pure imagination.” Just remember the scripture specifically says there is one mediator between man and God, Christ. So any prayer, or adoration, or whatever dullia you want to call it that you give to Mary, you risk your soul deifying Mary. You have been dually warned. Again, looking at the BIBLE, Mary considered herself a bond slave of the Lord and a sinner appealing to Him as her savior. Jesus when He gets in his ministry separates himself by calling her WOMAN and Paul calls her woman when he says “born of a woman” Other than that she isn’t mentioned in the early church. The BIBLE calls her the mother of JESUS. Jesus existed before the foundation of the world with the Father. The bible story is about “the lamb of god that takes away the sin of the world” not the Lambess of God. Tim has rightfully portrayed the characterization of the RC Mary as being lifted up in the place of the Savior. And we see whats coming in the Roman church, co saviors, and really Mary circumventing and replacing Christ. We already know that the only mention of a man being a vicar on earth in the scripture is in Thessalonians where it speaks of “the man of Perdition” who has put himself up in the church as head. When we know Jesus is the head of his church Colossians 1. The Rc makes God out to be transcendent and a tough guy and Jesus is weak and incapable, so one must go to the arriving queen and savior of the world. HERESY! Catholics need to understand Christ conquered sin and death. You can only believe. You or Mary cannot usurp the offices of Christ, Priest, Prophet and King, or qualify to offer up the merits of the Savior. He propitiated sin and He presents his sacrifice to the father on our behalf. we can only offer spiritual sacrifices and prayer and thanksgiving. We cannot propitiate our own sin because we didn’t die on a cross. We have been crucified with Christ and raised with Him thru faith because He is our substitute whose merits alone justified us past tense. . He fulfilled all righteousness and freed us from the penalty of the Law. Thats why He said it is finished and He said he had accomplished salvation. The Bible says repeatedly this sacrifice was sufficient, perfect, and once, it put sin away, past present and future, a blanket across History. God justifies ungodly people by faith, apart from works. Romans 4:5. 5:1 says our justification is past tense, and 8:1 we stand presently not condemned and just, not because we are, but because he delated us so baed on the imputed obedience and death of Christ to our account. God transferred the Law to Christ and he fulfilled it in our place. ” For He made him who knew no sin, to become sin that we might become “the righteousness of God. Imputation. Not ontological transformation. Romans 5:18-19 thru one man;s disobedience the many were made sinners, and by the obedience of one man the man will be constituted righteousness. No transformation here. Our works are simple the fruit of our justification that god had prepared for us. K
Kevin,
” Paul calls her woman when he says “born of a woman” Other than that she isn’t mentioned in the early church.”
Neither Paul nor Mark mention the virgin birth of Jesus at all. By your logic, they must have denied it then, right?
All the rest of your prattle has been answered to the point of over redundancy on this blog and elsewhere. I am tired of you. Go spray paint grafitti on a Catholic orphanage, heckle a nun, hand out Jack Chick material to kids waiting for the bus or whatever it is you do when not blogging your hate. It is bad enough that you are a Catholic hater but do you have to be such a boring one? You ask and re-ask the same questions day after day, week after week. Get some fresh material then come back.
Have a great day, Jim
Tim,
I probably shouldn’t have dispensed with young Kevin so abruptly. Not before saying a word or two on his, “Jim, As Luther said if Im not convinced by scripture or sound judgement then it rely means nothing…”
Kevin would do well to remember what he has been told about Luther being a staunch defender of Mary’s perpetual Virginity. He said it was taught in scripture. As Kevin wagers his salvation of Dr. Luther’s exegesis of scripture when it comes to justification by faith ( alone ), he should be consistent when it comes to Mary, eh?
As a matter of fact, when Luther squared off with Zwingli at Marburg over the nature of the Eucharist, as a test to make sure both great heresiarchs were orthodox Christians, each had to agree that the word “brother” used in conjunction with Jesus was not to be interpreted as Mary not being a Perpetual Virgin. Had either man said otherwise, the other one would have walked out rather waste time arguing with a foolish heretic.
It was to take about 200 years of drifting further and further from their Christian moorings for Protestants to almost universally take as their shibboleth the denial of this Marian prerogative. If it is such a non essential for salvation, why do some make such an issue over it? Hmmmmmm?
Thanks, Jim,
I certainly understand your observations on Luther. He did waver on some things, and was unmovable on others. He went back and forth on the immaculate conception, he seemed to drift steadily away from Rome’s views on Mary as mediatrix (although he clearly held them at some point, as he was, after all, a Roman Catholic monk). He is an interesting study. It seems odd to me that he would approve the title “Queen of Heaven” for Mary, but still warn against its “overuse.”
So yes, there are parts of Luther that are hard to nail down, and other parts that I wish he had not carried with him on his way across the Tiber. There are also some topics on which he waxed eloquent.
I personally do not subscribe to everything Luther wrote and taught. Nor do I subscribe to everything Calvin wrote or taught. Sometimes they went back and forth in the same commentary.
I think Luther (and a lot of Reformers) erred in identifying Roman Catholicism as “the king of the North” in the latter portions of Daniel 11, (as did I many years ago). People do change, it is true. Luther certainly did over time—at first, the Turks were the fulfillment of Daniel 11 (after verse 37 or so). Then the Papacy, or both….
Do I believe Rome is deeply entrenched in fatal error? Yes, I do. Do I believe there are eschatological implications to Rome’s identity? Yes, I do. Do I consider Roman Catholics to be my brethren in Christ? No, I do not. I simply believe there is too great a distance between the two gospels.
That said, I’m happy to have Protestants and Catholics listening.
Thanks,
Tim
Jim, you have allot of stories, but no scripture. Your a clown act. Busy juggling with you’re red nose. World of pure imagination. The bible says Mary had children. She married Joseph and enjoyed a normal marriage as any other woman. she shows up with her children all over the place. And the word is completely opposite of nephew. Oops a Catholic stuck with scripture again, time for more stories. Maybe you and Debbie can join Neil Frisbee in the Friday night healing tents and tell your Mary apparition stories.
Good Kevin,
You are so sure that Mary had other children! You went so far as to write , “Jim, you have allot of stories, but no scripture. Your a clown act. Busy juggling with you’re red nose. World of pure imagination. The bible says Mary had children. She married Joseph and enjoyed a normal marriage as any other woman. she shows up with her children all over the place. And the word is completely opposite of nephew.”
If Mary had other children, what are their names? James, Joses, Simon and Jude? Scroll around Tim’s blog and you will find out that these are indeed kinsmen of Jesus, but not brothers german. I wrote more than one post on it. And it is I, dear separated brother, and not you, who has been using scripture in my arguments. You have simply been shouting louder and louder your opinion. Give me scripture, Kevin. Not bombast.
“Nephew”? I have called this embarrassing faux pas to your attention before. Adelphoi is about Jesus’ “brothers” , not about Mary’s nephews.
As for my red nose, when God was handing out noses, I thought he said “roses” and said, ” I will take a big red one!”
You continue having a great day
Folks, I don’t mind the playful banter, but do please keep comments to the issues. I do not believe there is much to be gained by comments intended to embarrass or humiliate another guest. There is plenty to discuss—but I do not want to scare off the lurkers. Their comments are welcome, but given the recent exchanges, I doubt many would dare to opine.
As Samuel Johnson once chided, “You raise your voice when you should reinforce your argument.” I prefer that we focus on the latter.
It matters very little to me who believes they can more accurately describe the outcome of a dinner party several years ago. The outcome of the dinner party is not relevant to the discussions this blog was intended to evoke.
Thanks for everyone’s participation.
Your humble host and moderator,
Tim
Okay Tim. I am up for that. Ciao
Jim, I invite you to listen to RC Sroul ” Mary’s magnificent Savior” heat job by RC. Mathew 1:25 ” and took Marry as his wife ( knew her in a biblical sense) , but kept here a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to a Son ( firstborn, meaning others came in the language)” IOW Joseph kept her a virgin until she had her firstborn, indicating others to come, then they got busy filling God’s quiver. God blessed them with other children. Please read her magnificat where she call Christ here Lord and savior. God has a way of protecting us against your apostasy Jim. Its called his revealed word. Amen!
Tim, I want to apologize for any wrong behavior on my part and will stick to the issues. K
Kevin,
You have directed me R.C. Sproul’s material on Mary, specifically his work up on the word “until”. I prefer to go by the Bible.
You reference “Joseph kept her a virgin until she had her firstborn…”
In 2nd Samuel we have David’s wife, Michel, scorn David for his devotion to the Ark of the Covenant. She was punished for it. She bore no children UNTIL the day she died.
Kevin, did she have children after the day of her death?
Okay, let’s address ( again ) the brothers of the Lord.
They are listed as James, Joses, Simon and Jude.
At Calvary the mother of James and Joses was present. In one passage she is called simply the mother of James only and elsewhere the mother of Joses only. This proves we don’t need all children listed every time. This James is called James the Lesser. “Lesser” means a comparison between two and only two. Where do we find two men named James? Yes, the 12 Apostles.
One James, the Greater was the son of Zebedee. He came here to Iberia and evangelized then went home and was beheaded.
The Lesser James, a Levite, became Bishop of Jerusalem. This is the Brother of the Lord. ( Galatians ). Since he was an Apostle, but not the son of Zebedee, we can narrow him down to being the son of Alphaeus ( Not St. Joseph ).
Moving on, this James had a brother/son/kinsman ( depending where you look in the Bible ) named Jude.
This leaves only Simon the Canaanite. He is listed by Jude. Do notice that while the various lists of the Apostle don’t list the 12 exactly the same way, (except they all put Pope Peter first and Judas last ), they seem to list them in groups of four each time according to brothers ( Peter/Andrew, James/John and James/Jude/Simon.
The Blessed Mother was invited to a wedding feast at Cana/Canaan. She probably had relatives there, Simon’s kin.
We know Mary, of the tribe of David, had priestly relatives ( Zachary and Elizabeth ). James, the kinsman of Jesus was Bishop of Jerusalem ( Acts 15 ) and had the Jewish converts as his charge. Nationalist Jewish converts and Judaizers would never have submitted to the authority of a non Levite. I would have to leave Bible alone and move on to early Church history at this point to elaborate, but since you don’t accept anything but the Bible, I will stop here and ask you to connect the dots above. I can do some fine tuning if you insist. I just skimmed over the material, I know.
I pray I will not be asked to explain this all again.
Kevin, I know this rocks your world. Everything you were so sure about is starting to crumble and you are disturbed.
Think how St. Paul felt.
As for RC Sproul, well, you must know how much stock I put in anything he would have to say on this issue.
Tim,
As it is 1st Saturday today, maybe we could talk about the Scapular? I have in my Bible some pages I tore out of a Homiletic Review years ago written by our Fr. Most. Maybe the readers can find it online?
For those who aren’t aware, we Catholics believe we can have a ( reasonable ) assurance of salvation too.
It is true, as you have been so good as to point out, that Catholics are not required to believe in any particular apparition or private revelation.
However, as you again say, we Catholics are required to submit to Peter’s authority when it comes to the Faith of the entire Church.
The scapular has been endorsed and indulgenced by so many Popes, confirmed by so many conversions and miracles, and even has a Mass for Our Lady of Mt. Carmel celebrated in the universal Church’s calendar, that it no longer falls under the category of a private revelation or pious opinion.
I gotta run, Just let me encourage all readers, Catholic and non catholic alike, that we don’t want to be caught dead without our scapulars on!
Yes, Jim, and that is precisely my point. I will remind you here that at one point the vision of Mary to St. Simon Stock at Cambridge was once, as you say, an “obscure” apparition of Mary, and now here it is as sure to you as an infallible pronouncement from the chair of St. Peter.
Perhaps someday, Joseph’s cleansing from the stain of original sin immediately after his conception—at which point he “surpassed the holiness of the highest angel in the angelic choir,” and thereafter lived a life of sinlessness—will be taught as infallible doctrine, as well. For that is the teaching of the apparition of Mary in Rome City, Indiana, which apparition Debbie is currently commending to us.
That is an “obscure” apparition as well, but it has also has received the approval of the local authorities.
Is that your belief, Jim, that Joseph lived a life of sinlessness after his conception? No need to answer hastily, of course. I understand that you are not required to affirm the teachings of that apparition. Yet.
Tim
Dr. Tim,
You queried, “Is that your belief, Jim, that Joseph lived a life of sinlessness after his conception? No need to answer hastily, of course. I understand that you are not required to affirm the teachings of that apparition. Yet.”
I do hasten to say I belief Joseph to have been sinless. If John the Baptist was cleansed of Original Sin while still in Elizabeth’s womb, why would I hesitate to affirm more for Joseph????
I know Fr. Dominic De Dominico O.P. ( a Dominican with a name like that, for sure,Ha!!!) who is an expert on Joseph. Maybe you can find his work online.
Doctor T, I believe the Scapular Promises because of the promises made to Peter. Read Fr. Most’s article.
The Petrine Office is the easiest thing to prove from scripture. I would love to chat about it with you some time.
Jim,
You’ll be happy to know that I not only found Fr. Domenico’s work online—I actually found Fr. Domenico. We had a pleasant chat this afternoon by phone.
As regards the Scapular that was provided by the vision of Mary to St. Simon Stock in 1215, you wrote:
I did read Fr. Most’s article. Let me first say that your initial claim is incorrect. You initially claimed (above) that “The scapular has been endorsed and indulgenced by so many Popes … that it no longer falls under the category of a private revelation.” In his article, Fr. Most actually says the Scapular itself remains in the domain of private revelation, but that we can at least take it on the authority of the Pope that “the protection of the Blessed Virgin will protect one from eternal death.” That’s as much as he can get out of public revelation from the “successor of St. Peter.” What he cannot get out of public revelation is that “the protection of the Blessed Virgin” attends the wearing of the scapular. That remains a matter of private revelation.
Thus, when Pius XII said, “For the Holy Scapular, which may be called the Habit or Garment of Mary,
is a sign and a pledge of the protection of the Mother of God,” and that “Most willingly do we commend … the substance of the Promise of the Most Blessed Virgin which has been handed down to us,” he is not merely affirming the doctrine that Mary assists at the hour of death, but that she does so by the wearing of “the Holy Scapular”, a tradition that was introduced to the Church not from within the deposit of faith, but externally, from a vision of Mary. And that was my original point in this article, and will be the focus of my next.
Thanks as always for your comments,
Tim
I wanted to share this to help explain what I meant by Mary as being a dessert. I apologize for using images when I speak to convey truths that I really don’t have the appropriate words for. In the past I have tried to describe God’s love and grace by painting images of what a mother feels when her first born child smiles at her. I was trying to convey the depths of Divine love, certainly not my ability to give grace. Parables if you will.
Anyway, reading this reflection about Mary gives one the ‘image’ of great love:
Happy, indeed sublimely happy,
is the person to whom the Holy Spirit reveals the secret of Mary, thus imparting to him true knowledge of her.
Happy the person to whom the Holy Spirit opens this enclosed garden for him to enter,
and to whom the Holy Spirit gives access to this sealed fountain
where he can draw water and drink deep draughts of the living waters of grace.
That person will find only grace and no creature in the most lovable Virgin Mary.
But he will find that the infinitely holy and exalted God is at the same time
infinitely solicitous for him and understands his weaknesses.
Since God is everywhere, He can be found everywhere, even in hell.
But there is no place where God can be more present to His creature
and more sympathetic to human weakness than in Mary.
It was indeed for this very purpose that He came down from heaven.
Everywhere else He is the Bread of the strong and the Bread of angels,
but living in Mary He is the Bread of children.
Saint Louis–Marie Grignion de Montfort
Debbie, I just made my Total Consecration to Jesus through Mary ( Louis De Montfort ) on Jan 1 of this year.
I’m so happy for you Jim.
Tim and Kevin,
I feel that is important that I share very honestly how I felt the first time I heard about total consecration to Jesus through Mary. It made me bewildered, nervous and suspicious about what this could possibly be.
One of my daughters had studied this for some time and felt very compelled and called to consecrate herself in this very specific way. She gently led me through the theology of what it entails and what a person is really promising to live like and pray like. The are, in the simplest sense, to stay incredibly close to Jesus, just like Mary. I didn’t get it over night, it took me quite some time to feel comfortable with even the idea of it. After watching her for a couple of years, I could see the transformation in her and the boldness in which she was being led to be a holy woman of God. She has been blessed with many graces to spread this glimpse of real authentic unabashed loving.
Peace.
Dr. Tim,
You queried, “Is that your belief, Jim, that Joseph lived a life of sinlessness after his conception? No need to answer hastily, of course. I understand that you are not required to affirm the teachings of that apparition. Yet.”
I do hasten to say I belief Joseph to have been sinless. If John the Baptist was cleansed of Original Sin while still in Elizabeth’s womb, why would I hesitate to affirm more for Joseph????
I know Fr. Dominic De Dominico O.P. ( a Dominican with a name like that, for sure,Ha!!!) who is an expert on Joseph. Maybe you can find his work online.
Doctor T, I believe the Scapular Promises because of the promises made to Peter. Read Fr. Most’s article.
The Petrine Office is the easiest thing to prove from scripture. I would love to chat about it with you some time.
Hi, Jim,
Thanks for writing. EWTN seems to me to be a reliable source on Roman Catholic dogma, and EWTN rules out your assertion plainly:
EWTN also denies that a Joseph’s prenatal sanctification can be found in the Deposit of Faith:
This suggests to me that the apparitions of Mary are revealing things not contained in the Deposit of Faith.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, You wrote, ” Do I consider Roman Catholics to be my brethren in Christ? No, ”
Do you have any family members still in the Church?
I think you said you are a Presbyterian. So your kids have been Baptized. Since they appear to be below the age of reason, they are still Catholics. How do you feel about the little papists now?
Timmer, are you going to teach your four little blond kids to hate their Catholics cousins, aunts, uncles, granny, etc. etc.
Jim,
Thanks for writing. I do teach my children about the difference between Roman Catholicism and Christianity, party because I want to preserve them from error, but also because they ask about their cousins, uncles aunts and grandparents. They want to know if their relatives are Christians. As Debbie has mentioned, the Eucharist is central to Roman Catholicism, and there simply is no way to dance around that issue. My children have been taught that it is wrong to worship what is made by human hands, and that Roman Catholics believe they are worshiping the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ when they bow before the Eucharist—but that it is just bread and is not to be worshiped. My children are also taught not to pray to their departed relatives. So, yes, it may surprise you to know that I am raising them as Protestants.
One of my children asked me if his grandmother worshiped bread. The answer was, “Yes, she does.” But neither I nor my son hate my mother. We care for her very much.
Indeed, family gatherings can be stressful, which I suspect is true even of many families that share the same religion.
Warm regards,
Tim
Hey Tim, you are finally letting it all hang out.
Speaking of Frankenstein stories, I would love to know if your wife reads your blog. Would she want her kids to grow up like Kevin? Would she even want him around her kids? Would she be proud of her husband’s “Christian ” blog?
Christmas, Easter and other holidays must be great family times around you! Lots o’ love, huh?
Hey, what happened to Andrew B. He was a decent kind of guy, it seemed. I wonder if he would be proud to see you and your henchman say “hocus pocus”, and to say Catholics are not Christian brothers. Andrew is a dad too, right? Is he raising his kids to hate too. I doubt it. Or, I sure hope not.
Jim, Common knock it off. Tim told you your free to disagree with him. He has treated you with respect, please return it in kind. Remember you are representing your head when you behave like this. This is Tim’s site, he can write what he wants.
Tim,
I noticed that this link didn’t copy correctly from Jim, I’m sure it was a mistake:
http://tobinternationalsymposia.com/?p=361
Also, I noticed my post from a couple of days ago didn’t make it on your home page as a comment left, so to be sure there is no mistake, I thought I would leave it again. It was written in sincere love and honesty, and it took some prayer for me to write and share.
Tim and Kevin,
I feel that is important that I share very honestly how I felt the first time I heard about total consecration to Jesus through Mary. It made me bewildered, nervous and suspicious about what this could possibly be.
One of my daughters had studied this for some time and felt very compelled and called to consecrate herself in this very specific way. She gently led me through the theology of what it entails and what a person is really promising to live like and pray like. The are, in the simplest sense, to stay incredibly close to Jesus, just like Mary. I didn’t get it over night, it took me quite some time to feel comfortable with even the idea of it. After watching her for a couple of years, I could see the transformation in her and the boldness in which she was being led to be a holy woman of God. She has been blessed with many graces to spread this glimpse of real authentic unabashed loving.
Peace.
Thank you, Debbie,
Your post came through both times. I understand your gradual acceptance of your daughter’s religious convictions. I heard it said once that discernment is not the ability to tell right from wrong, but rather the ability to tell right from almost right.
On that note, this issue of Total Consecration to Jesus Through Mary is of some interest to me because of Mother Teresa’s insistence that the only way to Jesus is through the eucharistic heart of Mary. Since Jim has mentioned Dominic de Domenico, OP, I will tangentially insert this quip from a blurb on his book, True Devotion to St. Joseph: “Find the short and easy way to go to Mary and Jesus!”
Neither Rome nor the visions of Mary have ever objected to the need for a mediator between man and God. They merely object to the idea of that mediator being Jesus alone. So they add the need for us to approach Jesus through Mary, and as Fr. Domenico instructs us, the quickest way to Mary is through Joseph. As devotion to St. Joseph continues to grow, I have no doubt that eventually we will hear of new saints that serve as the quickest way to get to Joseph. This is what happens as each new mediator is elevated to a level of pristine holiness and sinlessness, above even the angels themselves—we always find that this new mediator, too, is also too holy to approach directly, and therefore we require yet another mediator. This may seem humble on the surface, but it is at its core a rejection of the incarnation, for Jesus is able “to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him” (Hebrews 7:25).
In the apparitions of Mary at Garabandal, “Mary” grew impatient with the children for not following the instructions properly, and sent Michael the Archangel to express “her” disappointment.
At some point, Joseph and Michael will be disappointed as well, and we will need yet another mediator between us and Mary.
But there is just one mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5).
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, As you can see the direction the RC is headed and has been headed for may years in its many idolatries and perversion of the Gospel. The marian ego has gone wild and as you can see she is the replacement for Christ as the compassionate and loving savior and mediator. Romans 1 says He was raised and declared son of God with power, and yet they have pulled Christ down and strapped him to the altar, and won’t let Him off the cross, yet they have elevated Mary into his position as queen. Im always reminded how the scripture says Satan makes good look evil and evil look good. Remember when I told you everything the Roman Catholic church teaches is opposite of scripture. The Bible says Jesus is the only mediator. They say Marry. The bible says man is justified by faith apart from works, they say works are involved. The bible says Christ is the head of the church, they say the Pope. The bible says it is God breathed, they say tradition. The bible says a sacrament is a free gift of God’s grace to seal and confirm our faith, they say it is a work of man to merit increase in justice. The bible says Christ is at the right hand of the father, they say he is in the deadly wafer. The bible says Marry is a sinner,bond slave of Jesus, mother of Jesus, had children, they say she is co-mediatrix, had no children and is sinless. We should never forget on the long war on the truth, the most deceptive, relentless, and deadly enemy has been Roman catholicism. It is a false Christianity, a front for the kingdom of Satan. Its like the emperor in his new clothes. All the pea gentry on the outside, but a brood of vipers inside. We need to pray for the people in this deceptive religion. They worship the creature and not the Creator who is blessed forever amen. Tim keep preaching. I have passed out thousands of copies of a paper I wrote against this giant error and have watched many freed from this oppressive Religion. Remember the truth will set men free. God bless Kevin
Tim,
I have read much of this thread and comments. You have done a very nice job of being gracious as a host of the site, and are doing a very admirable job of instructing.
As a former Roman Catholic who grew up in a RC school, was an alter boy, read in our church for morning mass 3 days a week for the school and with parents who were devoted Catholics (dad went to Notre Dame), etc. it was very painful to read scripture and unwind what I was taught by sacred tradition. It is even more painful today to see EWTN and listen to what I only saw the surface of growing up.
I would encourage you to look at historical post-mill eschatology and look at some of the sermons by former Roman Catholic Priest Richard Bennett. He also does a great job of quoting source material of Rome and compares it to the Scriptures.
Thank you, Walt,
I, too, served as an altar boy, frequented benediction, and stations of the cross. My dad went to Notre Dame, too.
Thanks for the reference on Richard Bennett. He and I have spoken at Trinity Foundation conferences and we co-authored an article for the Trinity Review, which you can find here.
Thanks for reading, and for checking in.
Tim
Hi Debbie, I clicked on the link at posted here and up comes the conference. The specific lecture I referred to is the one by Christopher West.
Tim says he was raised on devotion to Fatima. As his childhooed was before JPII and the fall of Communism, he can learn some stuff too.
Should he opt to do a piece on this apparition, he really should research just what was happening at the time of the apparitions in Russia, Lisbon as being the freemasonic capitol of the world, and just what were those “errors” Our Lady told the little shepherds about.
Tim would do well to read up on JPII and his theology of the body too as this Pope is inseparable from the Fatima message.
Take care.
Thank you, Jim. I prayed many Rosaries for the fall of communism, and distributed literature about how many times “Our Lady” had preserved us from nuclear war. You are quite right that the Pope is inseparable from the Fatima message.
Thanks,
Tim
Walt and Tim, When you next speak to Richard Bennett, would you let him know I am at St. Mary’s Irish Dominicans in Lisbon. Tell him I have met a couple of his fellow Dominicans that served with him in Trinidad where he apostatized from the fullness of Christianity..
As it has been several years, he probably won’t recall my name. Tell him I am the guy who attended the Dominican parish in Portland and used to evangelize him and Bill Webster.
Tim, You wrote , “One of my children asked me if his grandmother worshiped bread. The answer was, “Yes, she does.” But neither I nor my son hate my mother. We care for her very much.”
How touching. I care for my 94 year old mother in law too. I certainly don’t hate the old bat, but she is totally nuts.
I see you are teaching your son that his granny is a crazy old lady, not worthy of his esteem and respect. But is she really?
To be fair though Tim, wouldn’t it be more accurate to tell your boy that his grandmother worships Jesus under the appearance of bread. That might be more charitable to her and more honest to the child who is being disenfranchised of the love he should have for a perfectly sane grandmother.
After all, Tim, she doesn’t genuflect in front of the bread box in her kitchen does she? She doesn’t cross herself when passing a bakery, right? At her church, they don’t put a hot dog bun in a monstrance and wave incense before it, do they? Then she doesn’t worship bread, does she Tim?
I don’t know why you want to punish your mom, but you really have born false witness against her. You owe both her and her grandchild the truth, dontcha’ think?
Tim, please don’t turn your henchman Kevin lose on your own mother, okay. I am sure he would love to preach his gospel to the papist but the stress of being called an idol worshiper might be too much for her.
Jim, if I were to tell my son that his grandmother worships Jesus under the appearance of bread, then I would merely be teaching him the doctrine of transubstantiation and the legitimacy of the Roman priesthood.
You write, “After all, Tim, she doesn’t genuflect in front of the bread box in her kitchen does she? She doesn’t cross herself when passing a bakery, right? At her church, they don’t put a hot dog bun in a monstrance and wave incense before it, do they? Then she doesn’t worship bread, does she Tim?”
That’s just the point. If the doctrine of transubstantiation is true, you are right, she doesn’t worship bread. But if the doctrine of transubstantiation is false, then she may as well genuflect in front of a breadbox, for the tabernacle in her church is nothing more than that.
Because the doctrine of transubstantiation is false, then Roman Catholics do indeed genuflect in front of a bread box, and they might as well be waving incense before a hot dog bun. This may offend you, and you may even insist that I refrain from saying so out of respect. But would Rome set aside its liturgical veneration of bread lest the separated brethren be offended? Of course not. And just as Rome attempts to counter Protestant offense at the sacrament by redoubling its efforts to explain the sacrament, Protestants respond by redoubling our efforts to portray Eucharistic adoration as the idolatry that it plainly is.
If the difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants is the eucharist (as Debbie has said), why does it surprise you that the difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants is the eucharist?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Thanks for the blog.
Eric W
You’re certainly welcome, Eric. I’m glad you could stop by.
Warm regards,
Tim
Tim, As we Catholics DO NOT believe the world, all that is seen and unseen, to have been created ex nihilo and sustained in existence by a piece of bread, whether pumpernickel, whole wheat, white or sesame seed, you really can’t accuse us of thinking a composite being, ( Bread ) could be God. Aquinas, who formulated the 5 Proofs for God also wrote the ‘ O Salutaris Hostia”, or didn’t you know?
You mentioned you were raising your children as Protestants. Have you ever thought of raising them as Christians? They should learn to worship Jesus, not Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli.
By the way, since my last post I went for a swim. While getting my exercise, I was reminiscing how Richard Bennett, who had long since left Christianity to become a Protestant, liked to stay abreast of all things pertaining to his order, the Dominicans.
He would be thrilled if you could tell him about the group I am attached to here.
After Cromwell and his Protestant killers murdered all the nuns in Ireland and made it a hanging offense to worship Christ as He wanted to be worshiped ( in the Mass ), it was no longer safe for girls to enter a convent in Ireland as the Protestants were practicing genocide on the he Christians.
In 164? a group of girls petitioned the King of Spain, who ruled Portugal at that time, for permission to come here and open a convent. He he gave the” emerald” green light and they came and opened the Convent of Nossa Senhora de Bom Sucesso which still exists today. I attend Mass there sometimes and my wife played a benefit concert for their day-care center for poor children.
Bennett’s order also brought some men as priests. The Irish Dominicans flourished here in Portugal and the school of Bom Sucesso educated the children of the most influential families.
In 1910 when the Masons assassinated the last king of Portugal, it was an Irish Dominican who rushed to give him the Last Rites.
By a strange irony, after the Masons took over and expelled the Jesuits, closed all churches, seized the convents and all the Church’s assets, only the Irish Dominicans were unmolested by the atheists. Why? Because Ireland was under jurisdiction of the English crown and the Portuguese Masons did not want to alienate their British allies.
So, the same English government that had persecuted them at first ended up protecting the Irish Dominican priests and nuns of Portugal.
Too bad Bennett can no longer share in the communion of saints with his old order.
As for you praying many rosaries for the conversion of Russia Tim, congratulation! The Berlin Wall fell and Russia is now being converted. Than you and thank your mom.
Jim, give it up, your getting dominated. One man’s bread worship is another man’s idolatry. ” The things i speak to you are spirit, the flesh profits nothing.” Memorize this verse.
Jimboy, Mathew 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this FRUIT OF THE VINE from now until the day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. Get it the words I speak are Spirit. Jesus said he was the door, it doesn’t make him a piece of wood. Jesus said I am the vine, it doesn’t make hi a literal tree. Jesus said i am the shepherd, it doesn’t mean he is going to show up and sheer little Suzzy’s wool. Get it.
Oh Kevin, Any good Lutheran can answer that! Since you are a fan of his, go to any Lutheran website that has a Q&A. Or , you can find a whole book online by Luther’s pal, Martin Chemnitz. He goes into great detail on what any child should be able tell a metaphor from a literal statement.
You see Kevin, for someone who praises Luther so much, you know next to zero about the guy. Lutherans developed some good arguments against the sacramentarians on this issue. ( And they did some pretty nasty things to Bible “Christians” like yourself for their views on Baptism).
Kevin, Bread Worship? Oh my!
Can you say “NICEAN CREED”? Google it. No mention of bread.
Did the Jews worship bread? No? Better check out “Shew Bread”.
Kevin, bread is a contingent being. It doesn’t have to exist. Anything that is able to exist or not exist needs a cause. Bread needs a cause. When you gobble it up in your sandwich, it is gone. It goes into your tummy and becomes those handles hanging over your belt. It, there fore cannot be a cause of the universe. Philosophy 101.
Do you thinks Tim’s mom is crazy Kevin? A heretic? Is Tim’s mom going to hell for thinking Jesus is behind or under what looks like ( not “is”) bread? Is Tim’s mom a “sycophant for Mary”? Is she all the nasty things you say over on the other blog? Do you think Tim’s mom would want you around her grandchildren?
Kevin, have you stopped beating your wife? Ha!
Jim, very simple, Jesus told the woman at the well, The Father is looking for worshipers who worship him in Spirit and in truth. The FLESH profits nothing. Don’t feed me Philosophy 101, I had all the philosophy classes in needed in college. Talk bible dude. No more apparition stories, and quit singing Gene wilder’s song Pure imagination. Christ is in the sacrament thus the Spirit and not in the flesh. He communicates his humanity to us thru the SPIRIT. He is seated in heaven in his human body at the right hand of God.
Kevin, After all I have been dredging up and throwing in your face about Luther, you actually scribbled the following;
“Jim, very simple, Jesus told the woman at the well,…”
Your spiritual father, the one who taught you Faith Alone and Bible Only said Christ committed adultery with this woman.
Arguing with you is like taking candy from a baby.
Jim, Deflect, thats all you have. Every time your in trouble theologically , you play the Luther card. Hilarious!
Kevin, Remember Hank Hanegraaf’s very wise saying;
YOU HAVE TO BUILD A BRIDGE BEFORE YOU CAN DRIVE HEAVY EQUIPMENT OVER IT.
I just read the “other blog”. Next time you meet a person who is very committed to their beliefs, don’t walk up to them and spit in their face. Make nice with them and then bring up your objections to their creed, code or cult in way that is respectful of THEM, even if you don’t respect their creed, code or cult.
In the early Church there was a group called the Donatists. They were Christians who would disrupt pagan ceremonies and even taunt the Romans into killing them so they could be martyrs. When the Church told them to knock it off, they called the Catholics soft on paganism. They ended up leaving the universal Church and are just a footnote in history today.
You could use some serious “people skills” Kevin. Amen.
Spoken from the chief spitter. ” Out of the abundance the mouth speaks”
Nice revisionist history on the Donatists
“Chief Spitter”, Kevin?
I have a rule about the way I address people; let them determine the degree of hostility.
I also don’t believe in being a door mat.
For example, I asked Tim why he was raising his kids as Protestants instead of as Christians.
Previously, about four or five different postings, I had affirmed the Catholic position that Protestants are Christians, as “brothers in Christ”.
Only after Tim denied the name of Christian to Catholics ( the first Christians ) did I give him a taste of his own mean medicine.
Of course I believe Protestants are Christians. The Pope says so!
You wiped your feet on the people “over there” for weeks despite warnings to tone it down. I am sure I was just one among many who called for your reigning in to the blog owner.
I strongly believe that this blog owner should do likewise. He has, to my dismay, stated without apology, that he endorses your style of doing evangelization. I can only conclude that he therefore endorses mine.
So, I suppose we will continue spitting until we both run dry.
Have a great day Kevin.
Hi, Jim,
Thanks for your note. I do want to provide one point of clarification. You observed that I “stated without apology” that I endorse Kevin’s style of evangelization. That’s not accurate. I was asked to prohibit Kevin from using the term “Hocus Pocus” because the term “Hocus Pocus” is considered offensive to Roman Catholics, as it is a “direct attack on the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.” I was not asked to comment on Kevin’s style.
In my opinion, prohibiting Protestants from formally and explicitly rejecting the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist “because it offends Catholics,” is just a way of requiring that Protestants show reverence to the Eucharist. I simply will not require of Protestants that they show reverence to the Eucharist as a condition of participating on this blog. The Eucharist is a piece of bread, nothing more.
I have no doubt that Daniel was tempted, for cultural considerations, simply to bow to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue in order to “build a bridge” to the Babylonians, and “earn the right to be heard.” But he did not. Daniel should not have to bow down to the idol in order to explain to the idolater next to him that he should not be bowing down. Likewise, I do not believe I should have to show reverence to the Eucharist as a condition of explaining why the Eucharist should not be reverenced. Therefore, I will not prohibit the use of “Hocus Pocus” here. It offends Roman Catholics because of what it means, and I agree with what it means.
I could play the victimization card and say that it “deeply offends” me that Roman Catholics find “Hocus Pocus” deeply offensive. Will Roman Catholics then bow to my requests and stop offending me? I don’t expect that they would. I can certainly understand why a Roman Catholic blog would have a different rule, but this is not a Roman Catholic blog.
Jim, you are always welcome here. I do not require that you endorse Protestant doctrines as a condition of participation on the blog. I am glad you are part of the conversation. You add both a European flavor and a “deep intellectual bench” to the discussions that I find helpful.
As regards my comment that I do not consider Roman Catholics to be my brethren in Christ, intellectual honesty requires that I say so. If “justification by faith alone” is the sine qua non of the Gospel, and Rome formally condemned “justification by faith alone” at the Council of Trent, I can come to no other conclusion but that Rome condemned the Gospel at the Council of Trent. The True Church cannot condemn the Gospel, and therefore Roman Catholicism is not the True Church. Just as I cannot say Muslims worship the same God but by a different name, I cannot bring myself to say that Roman Catholics worship the same God but under a different species.
Finally, I do not think “hate” is defined as “disagreeing with someone over a matter of doctrine.” I do not hate you, Jim. And I do not hate my mother. However, I do believe there are doctrinal differences that are not merely semantic.
Please continue to enjoy the blog. I certainly enjoy your participation.
Warm regards,
Tim
Jim, you mean a bunch of Catholic babies who sent a complaint letter around about me to their golden calf Jason and got me booted. Tim won’t do that to you. Of course my favorite post was you talking about being abused and called names at a Catholic festival in Denver by anti Catholics while in the same post you called me an oaf, a puke, and Igor. Hilarious. Looked like the original sin that was washed away in the magic waters of infant baptism raised its ugly head, huh.
Jim, Jason kicked me out because I don’t kiss his you know what like all of you do. So he passed a letter around asking Catholics if I am the problem. Boy I wonder how that was going to come out.Thats ok, I’ve been kicked out of better places than that. Catholics get to say anything they want over there, not the same for Protestants. Most of them have signed books or scapulars by Jason or Scott Hahn. If you want to be a hero in the RC, just be a liberal Protestant theologian and the swim the Tiber and write a book, you become a rock star. J.C. Ryle said it right, Roman Catholicism is one big system, of church worship, sacrament worship, Mary worship, saint worship, image worship, relic worship, Priest worship, Pope worship.”
Jim,
You wrote: “Walt and Tim, When you next speak to Richard Bennett, would you let him know I am at St. Mary’s Irish Dominicans in Lisbon. ”
I’m sorry that I cannot say have met Pastor Bennett, but I have listened to several of his video clips. I also saved several older one’s he did to video and show those to friends that visit so they can get the “rest of the story” on Catholicism.
Jim, have you ever wondered how come someone like yourself does not dig into some of these controversies and search the scriptures to see if they are true? I wonder often the same things about the Mormons and the others who follow the various “prophets” who declare this “sacred tradition”.
Walt, Acts 20: 30-32 ” and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you inheritance among all those who are sanctified.” You make a wise question to Jim. What I have found in a life of witnessing to Catholics and Mormons they share the same thing in this verse different than Christians. Notice Paul says the Christians in this verse are committed to the” word of his grace ” which build us up in our inheritance. He calls us sanctified ( declared so as in justification). Mormons and catholics don’t care about the word of grace. Its all about tradition, the church, and works. They would fall into the first category, those who would draw men away. I have Catholic friends that I have shared constant word of grace, scripture, but instead they are enamored with the things that draw away, enamored with church tradition, preoccupation with the Mother of Jesus, all other things than the gospel of Scripture. This I believe that someone like Jim or Mormons really don’t search the scriptures. J. C. Ryle, said one big system of church worship, Mary worship, sacrament worship, Priest worship, Pope worship, saint worship, everything but the word of God. Same with mormons. I had a Catholic friend who I shared the gospel with and he ran back to the Catholic church, and he said the most amazing thing to me. He said mormonism seems like a replay of Roman Catholicism. I thought, you are dead right. Based on works and added revelation, and reducing Christ to something less than he is. By substituting Mary for Christ and the mass rendering Christ’s one time sacrifice as insufficient they do the same thing all cults do, base their Gospel on works and reduce christ to less than he is.
Tim wrote:
Despite this clear teaching from the Catechism, many Roman Catholics draw from the teachings of the visions of Mary “to improve or complete” their knowledge of revelation, relying on the apparitions to do something that is clearly “not their role.”
Response:
Certain teachings about the historical Mary are part of the deposit of faith. Since Christ didn’t reveal any truths about the heavenly Mary, then her apparition-words cannot be part of the deposit.
We know that Mary said to do what He tells you. This is part of the deposit. What if the same Mary, speaking from heaven, says similar things ? Same person with similar words from heaven ! Her apparitions don’t need to part of the deposit because they are higher than the deposit.
Rome will not define or impose apparition-words because it is entrusted with the deposit only. Her power only extends to the deposit. Her affection, veneration, and faith reach higher than mere formulations. Her non-use of authority is a greater witness to the influence of apparitions !
Thanks, Eric,
An interesting observation. The concern is that, doctrinally, Rome is not said to enjoy the same charism of infallibility regarding private revelation as it does with public revelation. As Fr. Most said,
As regards private revelation—as apparitions are—the Roman Church ostensibly does not enjoy that same protection as for public revelation. So the issue is that Rome does not enjoy the same infallibility with regard to the apparitions of Mary, and yet it promulgates the teachings and practices of the apparitions anyway.
Thus, it makes little difference when a Roman Catholic objects that it doesn’t matter what the apparitions of Mary teach because Roman Catholics aren’t required to believe in them. It’s true, they are not required to believe the teachings of the apparitions (although in the article cited above, Fr. Most appears to make an exception for Fatima), but they are required to believe the doctrines derived from the apparitions. The use of the Scapular is a great example of this, because when Pope Pius XII said the wearing of the scapular is attended by the promise of Mary handed down to us, he was advancing the practice (wearing the scapular) that originated with private revelation, but has no basis in the Deposit of Faith.
Thanks for your comment,
Tim
Kevin, I did indeed call you those things. Please go back and look at your post which preceded my outburst that I do not repent of.
You said the Mass was “a’ scoundrel’ calling Christ down from heaven” or something like that. Previously you had said the Pope had stolen a crucifix off of a dead priest. And of course your famous hocus pocus blasphemy. Etc. Etc. Etc. for weeks.
No one wants you to kiss anything. No one is asking you to bow to Rome.
You are now, as Tim would say, ” playing the politics of victimization”.
Walt,
You asked me, ” how come someone like yourself does not dig into some of these controversies and search the scriptures to see if they are true?”
First of all Walt, let me say hello. You ask a fantastic question and I hope we can have a long and fruitful discussion about it.
Walt, I don’t dig into the scriptures to see if the Catholic Church’s teaching are true, you are correct.
I also don’t see anyone in the Old Testament delving into the scriptures to see if the high priest was correct.
Nor do I see this in the New testament ( I am amused to think Richard Bennett called his ministry the Berean Call or Beacon. I can’t remember and confuse it with Dave Hunt’s ).
I think we need to sit down and talk about why you, Walt, believe even one word of the Bible. Without falling into circular reasoning ( I believe the Bible because the Bible says … ), can you answer that?
That, my friend, is the $64,000 question!
Have a nice day
PS Walt, and anyone else who cares to jump in, may I ask another question in answer to your question? Which came first, the Church or the Bible?
Jim, you asked:
PS Walt, and anyone else who cares to jump in, may I ask another question in answer to your question? Which came first, the Church or the Bible?
The Church…see Heb.11:1, 2
Walt,
I know it has only been a couple of hours since posting my questions to you. However, I am up, heavily caffeinated, Holy Communicated, and champing at the bit to get started on our discussion.
Do you like history Walt? I do. I will ask you a question; when did the Bible get into the hands of the average Christian ( Catholic ) in Europe?
Not until Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1450 in order to get the Catholic Bible, complete with all 73 books, into the hands of lay people.
Until that time Walt, most people did not have access to the Bible other than at holy Mass when it was read to them. Only the village priest could read, and read in Latin, and only he had a Bible to read from.
My wife’s orchestra is attached to the famous Gulbenkian museum. I love to go there an see the wonderful display of hand copied Bibles produced by Catholic monks before Gutenberg’s press. These manuscripts are decorated with gold leaf and beautiful minute art work in the margins called Illumination . The Bible was considered to be worthy of embellishment by the Church and nothing was spared to honor it. These treasures were then chained to church pulpits so they could not be stolen much as ink pens are chained down in banks today.
Walt, for 1450 years after the birth of the Church, the principle of Bible Alone did not exist. The very idea of Christ commissioning the Apostles to go and write Bibles is as absurd and unhistorical as George Washington commissioning Ben Franklin to print in bulk copies of the Constitution for dissemination among the citizens to interpret according to their own consciences.
Just as our very fallible government needs a Supreme Court to decipher the intent of the framers of our founding documents, the same can be said, a hundred time more so, about the Bible and its need for an infallible interpreter, the Church.
Think about it Walt, you ask me why I, Jim, with no commission from Christ, no promise of guidance by the Spirit, special illumination, don’t submit His Church to my very fallible reading of the Bible.
Walt, the Church did not emerge from the New Testament. The 27 books of the New Testament we added to the Bible by the Catholic Church.
Ponder this Walt; the New Testament or Covenant was the Mass instituted at the Last Supper.
Certain letters and other writings were read at the gatherings of the first believers when they came together in secret to break the Bread of the New Covenant. Those writings were at first named “The Books of the New Testament”. Later the name was shortened to just “The New Testament”.
Walt, fire is good only in a fireplace. Outside of it, fire is dangerous. Sex is holy only in marriage. Outside of God’s purpose, sex is an abomination.
The Bible is good only when read in the Church. Outside of the Catholic Church, the Bible has become a source of error and heresy. Amen!
OOPS! Walt, I posted this in the wrong spot on Tim’s blog and so I have to copy and paste it here for YOU.
Hi Walt,
I am going to shoot some more stuff over to you to disprove the myth that the Bible is all we need.
Just scroll past Eric W’s post. There is nothing there worth the eye strain.
Walt, probably the nail in the coffin of Bible Alone is that the Bible does NOT teach it. On the contrary. The Bible points to extra-biblical authority. The Church, is the “Pillar and foundation” of Truth” in the Bible.
The Bible also established the authority of Tradition. Yes, Walt ,most Protestants are so used to hearing about the “traditions of men”verse that they just skim past what St. Paul says about the authority of Tradition.
I told you just to scroll past Eric’s post. That is because, on another blog, I buried him in scripture about the extra-biblical authority known as the Papacy. He did not even give a serious attempt at addressing the tons of stuff I sent him so I don’t even look at his posts anymore.
Walt, Jesus put Peter and his successors in charge as the visible head of His Church. That Church was given assurances by Christ that He would not let her fall away into error. Since the Church is inerrant/infallible/ the final court of appeal, the Papacy, must be too. The Bible is oh so clear on this.
I am a Bible Christian, Walt. I follow the whole Bible and not just a few verses of ” Paul that the unstable misinterpret to their destruction” ( Pope Peter said this in an encyclical found in the New testament ).
I am going to keep an eye out for your response. While I am going to scroll past silly comments just looking to take up my energy, I do want to continue this with you.
Your brother in Christ, Jim
REPLY
LEAVE A REPLY
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Name *
Email *
Website
Jim,
Thank you for this post. I understand that you are a Bible Catholic—which is to say you “follow the whole Bible and not just a few verses,” trusting in its “infallible interpreter, the Church.”
But do you know how many verses of the Bible the Roman Catholic Church has officially interpreted? Fewer than 10.
So when you say you believe the Bible and not just a few verses, you are saying that you believe what your infallible interpreter says about fewer than 10 verses, but whatever the rest of the verses mean, you trust the Church—whether it ever gets around to interpreting them infallibly or not. And since the Church has not interpreted more than a small handful of verses infallibly, you are not really “believing the Bible and not just a few verses.” You’re believing your Church. That is Sola Ecclesia. It is not “Bible Christianity.”
What I hear from you and other Roman Catholics is that you have an infallible pope, but that you cannot tell me how many times he has spoken infallibly or which statements are the infallible ones. You cannot even tell me the infallible criteria for determining which statements are infallible, or who can apply those criteria infallibly to determine which statements are infallible. I hear you say that apparitions of Mary are private revelation and you don’t have to believe them, and then I hear from Rome’s apologists that some apparitions are public revelation and to be commended to the hearing of the faithful—but that there is no infallible list of which ones you are supposed to heed, and which ones you can reject. You say that you believe the whole Bible and not just a few verses, but your infallible interpreter has not even infallibly interpreted into the double digits yet. And since your Bible has more verses in it than the Protestant Bible, Rome has more uninfallibly interpreted Bible verses than Protestants have.
I understand what you are saying about revelation, but I also know enough about Rome’s epistemology to know that the air of infallibility that Rome projects is a mirage. There is no substance to it.
You say, “the nail in the coffin of Bible Alone is that the Bible does NOT teach it.” I could take your rejection of “the Bible Alone” more seriously if there was some consistency to the rule by which you judged and condemned it.
Take your rejection as it is phrased above, and substitute “Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to His mother” for “Bible Alone.” It then reads, “the nail in the coffin of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to His mother is that the Bible does NOT teach it.”
But that doesn’t really settle the matter for you, does it? Because John Paul II taught that “it is legitimate to think that the Mother was probably the first person to whom the risen Jesus appeared.”
But Mark 16:9 says, “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.”
Your infallible interpreter of Scripture missed that one, I’d say.
Maybe John Paul II was speaking infallibly. Maybe he wasn’t. You don’t know. You can’t know. Or maybe he heard it from Our Lady of Fatima and Our Lady of Lourdes. Or maybe that was what was contained in the private message he received from the apparition of Medjugorje.
Whatever the source, I trust a simple ploughboy’s reading of Mark 16:9 over the guesswork of your pope. And this is the difference between us: I believe the Bible. You believe the Church. I get that.
But your claim of safety as you rely on an “infallible” interpreter is empty.
Thanks so much for your comment,
Tim
Tim,
I see you follow the old. “The best defense is a good offense”.
You did not address anything I put to Walt and you opted to obfuscate the rather than enlighten.
I will play along and pretend you have answered my questions and therefore answer your question on how we know if and when the Pope speaks infallibly.
Of course when he speaks from the chair, IOW, when he says he is speaking from Peter’s office.
He also merely has to reiterate the constant Tradition of the Church as JPII did when he addressed women’s ordination to qualify as speaking infallibly.
But Catholics should not demand to know how infallibly the Pope is speaking every time he says or writes something. Plus, there are times when he speaks that anyone can tell he is just speaking off the cuff or just giving an opinion.
Tim, when you tell your kids to stay out of the street, not play with matches, or not tease one another, do they parse among themselves the degree of paternal authority you were invoking? Or do you prefer they give loving consent to your dictates without trying to nullify them by saying, ” Dad said we couldn’t PLAY with matches but he didn’t say we couldn’t EXPERIMENT with them”?
Does that help? I do not wish to side step or hide from your concerns. Please go back and read what I said to Walt and deal with it. Your whole thrust is to demand that Papal statements on Marian apparitions submit to your reading of the Bible. My question to you is, where does the Bible require this. Where in the Bible does Peter have to answer to a tribunal using the Bible to justify his decisions. Should you come up with a chapter or verse, please tell me why anyone should believe one word of the Bible.
Take care
PS Apologies to Eric W. I should have deleted my comments about him before pasting this. I mistakenly assumed by clicking on the wrong thread that he was vying for attention from me. I wish him well but I just don’t think we communicate well with one another.
Also Walt. I hope I have not been coming off as Mr. Rogers to you. I am trying to avoid unnecessary conflict so I may be over compensating a bit.
All I have written to you today is in answer to your question to me as to why I don’t submit Papal statements on various Marian apparitions to the bar of scripture.
Jim, It is your very own O’brien that describes the act of the Priest pulling Christ down form heaven as his regent and sacrificing him on a Roman altar, not me. I call the Priest a scoundrel because no one has the power to pull Christ down from heaven. He said he layed down his own life and he did it once. Paul says in Romans 6 “never to die again” yet in the twisted sacrifice of the Roman mass you continue to break his body again and again. Masses have been bought and sold in the Roman church. Thru history masses have been offered for animals etc. Hebrews 10:14 ” By ONE offering He perfected for ever all those for whom He died. where there is forviness of these there remains NO MORE offering for sin. Again, Rome turns scripture upside down. Read Robert’s post on Jason’s blog this morning, the quote from a catholic Priest how Trent intended the focus on grace, but what has resulted from Trent is a system of works and a false gospel. Jim, Im going to tell you the same thing I told Debbie, if you continue to follow the Roman gospel, you will not be saved. You have been forewarned.
Thank you for the forewarning Kevin. However, as you have never bothered to build that bridge that Hanegraaf talks about, I am not interested in what you have to say about my salvation.
I don’t know what your motives are. People who have demonstrated their love me have told me the Catholic Church is the way to go. I trust them.
I also have done some research and believe those good people who directed me to the Church have it right. I am willing to bet my salvation on it.
I am afraid of your angry god who loves no man. I cannot believe in a God who who makes men for hell.
In her Magnificat, Mary said her soul magnified the Lord.
The sun can sometimes be seen most clearly by its reflection rather than staring at it. She is like the moon reflecting her Son/sun.
God has sent His mother to lead us to her Son. Pay attention to her and quit saying the things you have been saying.
Worry about your own salvation for paying no heed to God’s mother.
I wish you could experience the joy of loving her, of knowing she wants you in heaven more than you do yourself.
Jim,
Thank you for all the posts. I run a pretty long day so I don’t have much time to get into too lengthy debates. I’m sure we have both been through this dialogue many times before today. Both of us come at the issue from different epistemology and presupposition. While I did hold your views at one time, about 25 years ago I dug deep into the same questions and comments we are discussing. After I left the Roman Catholic church, I had to change my presupposition and epistemological self consciousnesses toward Scripture.
While I believed at one time as I was trained that Guttenberg printed the first bible, based upon Jerome’s latin text, I later learned about the manuscripts and how they were preserved during history and in the face of the Romish dark and middle ages. While this is not likely the detail you were seeking, I would encourage you to read a more detailed history of Scripture that goes beyond some of the dates you outlined.
The link is here
http://greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html
While I would encourage you to read it entirely, I will quote one point that I think would conflict with what you and I were taught growing up.
“On the Scottish Island of Iona, in 563 AD, a man named Columba started a Bible College. For the next 700 years, this was the source of much of the non-Catholic, evangelical Bible teaching through those centuries of the Dark and Middle Ages. The students of this college were called “Culdees”, which means “certain stranger”. The Culdees were a secret society, and the remnant of the true Christian faith was kept alive by these men during the many centuries that led up to the Protestant Reformation.”
In regard to the question about what came first the church or the Scripture. I am a Scottish Covenanter, and Presbyterian, and look at covenanting in Scripture and history to be fundamental to a proper understanding of Scripture. The interpretation of Scripture should be done using a method that is not “literal” or “figurative” solely as some suggest, but it is best to use the “literal sense” or “intended meaning” method which uses Scripture to interpret Scripture. It is key to understand the intended meaning of the author, who is God Himself. The only true interpreter is the Scripture speaking in the Scripture, and not Pope Peter, nor any Pope, nor any sacred tradition.
While I believe the visible church is all those who profess Jesus Christ as Lord, I further believe that the visible church has those who are unfaithful (being) and faithful (well-being) in their practical outworking of doctrine, discipline, form of worship and form of government. If you read the Scottish National Covenant of 1580 it is a good example of the protest against Rome. It is the best public testimony against the errors that those who DID READ Scripture, vs. those who could not read nor understand the Latin pre-1560-1580.
If you don’t get a chance to read or look into my information, I certainly understand. It is very hard to see another view and reverse one’s epistemology to the Catholic question on who is faithful vs. who is most visible.
Walt,
I certainly did click on the link. There is so much for me to comment on. I just just jump right in with the following quote;
“By 500 AD the Bible had been translated into over 500 languages. Just one century later, by 600 AD, it has been restricted to only one language: the Latin Vulgate! The only organized and recognized church at that time in history was the Catholic Church of Rome, and they refused to allow the scripture to be available in a…”.
Well, yes and no. Jerome’s Vulgate became the standard text in Latin. True. Just as English is the international language today, Latin was then. However, there were other translations in other languages. One common myth is that Luther was the first to put the Bible in German. Big myth! There were German Catholic Bibles already in existence before his translation. Not only in German but in other languages too. They can be seen in museums over here.
Of course the Church took charge and decided which versions were true of false. The Church did burn translations then just as you would burn a Jehovah’s Witness one today.
I found one line in the link curious;
“There is no truth to the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha, which stemmed from the fact that the Roman Catholics kept 12 of the 14 Apocrypha Books in their Bible, as the Protestants removed all of them. No real justification was ever given for the removal of these ancient Jewish writings from before the time of Christ, which had remained untouched and part of every Bible for nearly two thousand years.”
Could you explain this to Tim and Kevin? I don’t think they are going to agree.
Finally, Walt, I have got to question any article that asserts the following bizarre statement;
“Pope Leo the Tenth showed his true feelings when he said, “The fable of Christ has been quite profitable to us!”
Is this the kind of information that impressed you enough that you left the Catholic Church?
Okay Walt, thanks for writing. I will devote a little more time to your post and get back to you later.
Take care
Jim, my bible tells me to love the Lord God with all of my heart soul and mind. I will not give the worship only due my savior to the mother of Jesus or the deadly wafer. God called me to worship Him in spirit and truth. To put anything up in the place of the savior, be it a piece of bread, or Mary, would cost me my soul. I will worship God thru Jesus Christ only. The scripture tells me that his Spirit bears witness with my spirit that i am a child of God. And as I worship in Spirit, the scripture tells me that the Spirit intercedes for me with groanings to deep for words. He left us his Spirit.
Kevin, if a Catholic were to put a piece of bread or Mary in the place of the savior, it would cost them their souls too.
Jim, I agree.
“…but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history.(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 67)”
“Despite this clear teaching from the Catechism,”
–The teaching is clear. Your excerpted interpretation is clearly biased.
The many blessings of Our Lady’s aparitions are meant as a HELP to those who are otherwise imperfect and unable to live up to Our Lord’s teachings without THAT HELP.
If only all of us could simply walk the walk of a Christian.
many Roman Catholics draw from the teachings of the visions of Mary “to improve or complete” their knowledge of revelation, relying on the apparitions to do something that is clearly “not their role.”
It is clear that those who ‘rely’ on these aparitions gain nothing from “their” teachings. In fact, Our Lady in her aparitions does not attempt to INSTRUCT or TEACH in anyway. To my limited knowledge, Our Lady has given warnings and hope. And continually she points to the fruit of her womb.
Of course I am a simple imperfect former heathen and masonic practitioner. I would never presume to impugn the good word of those educated on this great site of virtue.
Thank you for your comment. It may be that I am missing your point, but paragraph 67 says private revelations are not to “improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation.” Yet I have given you examples of theologians and apologists freely and enthusiastically using private revelation for just that: to determine what Mary was thinking and doing at the moments leading up to the Annunciation, or to know when Mary first realized that she had been conceived without sin, or find out that “doubt and anxiety, … awoke in the mind of the Lord, and he asked this terrible question: ‘What is the benefit of this sacrifice?’”. All of these are examples of the visions being used to “improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation,” and are therefore improper, for the Scriptures do not say those things.
People therefore clearly rely on those visions to “improve” on Revelation.
Thus, I do not understand how you can say,
Marshall “gained” an understanding of what Mary was thinking leading up to the annunciation, and now “knows” when Mary first “realized” she was sinless, and Fr. Livius ostensibly “understood” for the first time that Jesus was full of doubt. How you can characterize those as “gaining nothing” is beyond my ability to understand.
Thanks, though.
I am officially a Protestant, but I am dealing with these Marian apparitions, and I might turn Catholic.
I have always believed that these apparitions were demonic, because of the very verse “even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be under a divine curse! ”
BUT I recently change my mind, because of two things :
1- I had a false and unbiblical understanding of “gospel”
2- the biblical criteria of discernment validates Mary apparitions.
1/For me, in my protestant mind “gospel” meant “what is written in the New Testament”, so if an apparition would talk about things that are NOT in the New Testament, it would be demonic.
I finally come to understand that “gospel” in the Bible, actually means “Jesus Christ is the messiah, he came in flesh to save us through his death and resurrection”
Therefore, we can’t say that Mary apparitions preach another gospel. You can say that they reinforce Catholic dogmas. You can say that they confirm Catholic interpretations of the New Testament. But you can’t say these apparitions deny Jesus-Christ as the messiah, who died and rised for our salvation.
2/ The biblical criteria of discernment is that one :
“every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit who doesn’t confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God”
And again : “No one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” but by the Holy Spirit.”
In many apparitions, Mary taught the little children the prayer of “Our Father” and invite the children to recite the Credo. She many times sings the “Gloria Patri” with people while reciting the rosary. All these prayers, hymns and symbol of apostle, give glory to the Lord, and confess Christ to be so.
So, this led the Protestant that I am, to conclude that, if I am consistant with what the New Testament teaches, I can’t affirm these apparition are demonic.
I am really interested to know how you would respond to this.
Caro,
Roman Catholicism is the beast of Revelation 13. The apparition of Mary is the False prophet of Revelation 13 and teaches people to worship a piece of bread, the Roman Catholic Eucharist, the Image of the Beast of Revelation 13. If you find that acceptable, I cannot help you. God’s children have been warned, and we avoid Roman Catholicism like the plague. If you follow the Beast, the False Prophet and the Image, I cannot help you. But Scripture has warned you. Take heed.
Tim
Hello Tim,
You don’t really answer to what I wrote, if God said “every spirit who confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit who doesn’t confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God” how can you say Mary’s apparition is demonic ?
I read Revelation 13, I don’t find anything against the Catholic Church is this chapter.
Ok. Where in the New Testament does it say the gospel is “Jesus Christ is the messiah, he came in flesh to save us through his death and resurrection”?
We can start there.
Tim
The definition of this word “gospel” can’t be found in the New Testament since it is not a dictionary, it can be only deducted from the context when this word appears. So if you don’t aggre with the recap of the gospel I wrote, let me know which one you would suggest ?
Caro,
Would you agree, then, that the New Testament teaches us that “we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”? Does the gospel include that?
Thanks,
Tim
Caro, Mark 1:15 Jesus says ” repent and believe in the gospel” the gospel according to Jesus is told and believed, not done. It’s called good news. News is about something that already happened. That’s why for the Christian our salvation was finished in the one time offering of Christ on the cross. You said ” the biblical criteria of discernment validates Mary apparitions.” Actually I would argue that there is no biblical criteria that validates Marian apparitions, you can show us none. John Macarthur once said anything apart from the word of God can have no certainty. The whole Roman system falls into that category. Don’t let these things pull you from the simplicity of the gospel. Paul said I preach Christ crucified. K