marian apparitions

[Albion]

'In very much the same way as Protestants ask Catholics "why are you so devoted to Mary? Mary was simply a woman, she can't save you", a Catholic could in turn ask the Protestants "why are you so devoted to the Bible? Why do you spend so much time reading and studying it? It's simply a book, it can't save you. Why not trust in God instead?".

Well, the obvious reply is that the Bible is the word of God, divine revelation. Even your church considers it to be such.

Mary is neither God, nor God's word, nor an infallible source of doctrinal guidance.

You can see that the difference between the two is not only clear but very substantial.

In the Catholic train of thought, it is impossible to be truly devoted to Mary and at the same time not be truly devoted to Christ. The basic idea is that just as Christ entered this world through a woman, the world can enter into Christ through the same woman.

That's another romantic notion that folklore produced. It is neither Apostolic nor Scriptural, although I am sure that some people find it charming. It isn't anything that justifies attributing divine characteristics or powers to the Virgin, however.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

In the Catholic train of thought, it is impossible to be truly devoted to Mary and at the same time not be truly devoted to Christ.

Inasmuch as it would be impossible to be truly devoted to the donkey that Christ rode on and at the same time not be devoted to Christ. It's a classic non sequitur. Idolizing Mary is not a positive indicator of devotion to Christ. In fact, it calls into question whether it is Christ in fact, or by name only.

 

[Mark_Sam]

Inasmuch as it would be impossible to be truly devoted to the donkey that Christ rode on and at the same time not be devoted to Christ. It's a classic non sequitur. Idolizing Mary is not a positive indicator of devotion to Christ. In fact, it calls into question whether it is Christ in fact, or by name only.

I don't know if I want to keep beating a dead horse. But Mary has a unique role in salvation history - she is the mother of God, and gave Christ his humanity. So role much more significant than that of the donkey. St. Louis de Montfort's point in his book True Devotion is that Christ submitted himself to his mother for all of his life as a obedient Son. And he even did the miracle at the wedding at Cana on her request, even if his time had not come. I could also argue that since Christ is our Brother, then logically Mary - the mother of Christ - is also in a sense our mother, and so she deserves at least some honour, under the fourth commandment ("Honour your father and your mother").

Does that mean that the mother has power and authority over the Son? No. But Montfort reasons further, that since Mary is his dear mother, her prayers and requests are very pleasing to him. So if we sinners want to be as pleasing to Christ as possible, the best and easiest way would be to go through his mother. Is it necessary? Probably not. But you see that much of Marian devotion stems from awe or straight up fear of Christ the Sovereign King. (And the reason I mention Montfort's book is because that is considered as the book on modern Marian devotion - but it is not an easy read, either for Catholic or Protestant.)

Why would we need a mediator with Christ the Mediator in the first place? The thing is that unless you have revelations from Christ directly, there is always some mediation going on - either through the Bible, through listening to a preacher, through friends and families witnessing and nurturing your faith. So I do believe the opposition is not to mediation with the Mediatior per se, only Marian mediation.

Yes, in the Protestant paradigm it might be a non sequitur. But in the Catholic paradigm, Mary and Christ - mother and Son - are closely linked together, and Mary and her role is understood as vital to the Incarnation.

 

[Albion]

I don't know if I want to keep beating a dead horse. But Mary has a unique role in salvation history - she is the mother of God, and gave Christ his humanity. So role much more significant than that of the donkey. St. Louis de Montfort's point in his book True Devotion is that Christ submitted himself to his mother for all of his life as a obedient Son. And he even did the miracle at the wedding at Cana on her request, even if his time had not come. I could also argue that since Christ is our Brother, then logically Mary - the mother of Christ - is also in a sense our mother, and so she deserves at least some honour, under the fourth commandment ("Honour your father and your mother").

Have you ever noticed how many times Jesus did not put his mother on a pedestal? She went with him throughout his public ministry and was at the cross as well as with the disciples afterwards. But Jesus is never recorded as having made her the center of attention, of having gone out of his way to say to others how much his mother had done for him, or any of the things that most human sons do with their mothers? Since you mentioned Cana, realize also that he gave in to his mothers request but did so grudgingly and even criticized her for asking.

Honor, yes, and respect, too...but none of that which you are trying to say comes along with it.

 

[Phil 1:21]

It's like a toddler on Christmas who gets the best toy ever imaginable and decides to play with the box instead.

 

[Albion]

Why would we need a mediator with Christ the Mediator in the first place? The thing is that unless you have revelations from Christ directly, there is always some mediation going on - either through the Bible, through listening to a preacher, through friends and families witnessing and nurturing your faith. So I do believe the opposition is not to mediation with the Mediatior per se, only Marian mediation.

Those are not examples of a mediator.

 

[Cis.jd]

What do you believe about Marian apparitions? Do you believe in them? And do you believe that they are Mary or are they a demon? And which ones do you accept?

I personally accept just two Our lady of Walsingham and Our Lady of Guadelupe

honestly. No. I personally have a hard time believing this kinda stuff.. however I am interested in looking into it since the amount of people testifying it is a reason for me to give it a chance to be an actual miracle and not some made up story.

 

[Cis.jd]

I do understand that the above is Catholic doctrine and tradition, but where is it written in Scripture?

IMO, the only way to scripturally refute the immaculate conception is to make a case against the concept of original sin, just like the Orthodox do. But even then you'll still end up with Mary being sinless.

 

[bbbbbbb]

IMO, the only way to scripturally refute the immaculate conception is to make a case against the concept of original sin, just like the Orthodox do. But even then you'll still end up with Mary being sinless.

You can manage to make a case using the concept of original sin which works very well, but only if you do not define "original sin" as the Catholic Church does.

 

[Cis.jd]

You can manage to make a case using the concept of original sin which works very well, but only if you do not define "original sin" as the Catholic Church does.

What do you mean, the "inheriting from adam" part? How does your church define it, because I've been a protestant in many different churches and some of them have the same def as catholics but some had different ones.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What do you mean, the "inheriting from adam" part? How does your church define it, because I've been a protestant in many different churches and some of them have the same def as catholics but some had different ones.

You are correct. Many Protestant churches share most, if not all, of the concept of the Roman Catholic definition of "original sin".

Psalms 14, 51 (esp. vs. 5), and 53, not to mention Romans 3, make the case quite clearly. Sin is not a stain we inherit which can be washed away with water, but is our very nature, our essence, as descendants of Adam.

 

[bèlla]

I saw this thread last night and felt a familiar discomfort in my spirit when reading the prophecy from Fatima. When I retired to bed I did not rest soundly. The subject kept thrusting itself in my head desiring my attention. That is very similar to the feeling I had while reading the post.

I've had a lot experience with demonic presences. And while they will falsify much there's often a central element in their communication that I detect. It usually centers on one subject. It's very singular in nature. A place where they want you to place your attention. Not merely a portion. All of it.

I don't believe this is of God.

 

[Beloved2018]

In very much the same way as Protestants ask Catholics "why are you so devoted to Mary? Mary was simply a woman, she can't save you", a Catholic could in turn ask the Protestants "why are you so devoted to the Bible? Why do you spend so much time reading and studying it? It's simply a book, it can't save you. Why not trust in God instead?".

That last question might seem nonsensical, because it is: spending time reading the Bible and meditation on the Bible are not opposed to trusting in God alone. In the same way, under the Catholic system, that "spending time with Mary" is not opposed to trusting in God alone. You don't have to choose between God and the Bible, and in the same you don't have to choose between God and Mary. One is the goal (God), the other the means (Bible, Mary).

Whether or not it's, 'in the same way' would depend on how you define 'spending time with Mary' imho. I'm just not really sure what you mean here.

In the Catholic train of thought, it is impossible to be truly devoted to Mary and at the same time not be truly devoted to Christ. The basic idea is that just as Christ entered this world through a woman, the world can enter into Christ through the same woman. Devotion to Mary is not seen as contrary to devotion to Christ - devotion to Mary is a means of becoming more devoted to Christ.

Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

Of course, you are free to disagree with this. And you might say that these devotions leads to Mariolatry - and there are plenty of unhealthy Mary worship going on in the world. But you have to at least acknowledge that the Catholic Church officially do not sanction Mary worship, and that it teaches that Christ is the one and only Savior of mankind.

 

[Beloved2018]

Mary has since the very beginning been called "the mother of the Lord" (Luke 1:43) and "the favored one"/"endued with grace" (Luke 1:28), and the early Church understood that she had a special role in the history of salvation, being called "the God-bearer" (Theotokos), "the mother of God" and "the all-holy" (Panagia). Throughout the ages, the Church more and more understood who she was, in many ways it reached its height in the 1850's when the centuries-old belief of the Immaculate Conception was made dogma.

The standard Catholic apologetic answer is to compare the development of doctrine to a seed. The seed grows into a tree, which looks different, but it's still the same object, just in a more another form. The Apostles believed in the Incarnation and the Trinity. But the Church would still need several Ecumenical Councils over the span of centuries to fully explain these doctrines. The Church has always believed that Mary was a special person with a special mission, that she was the mother of God, she was holy, she was the Kecharitōménē ("the favored one").

Irenaeus, the "spiritual grandson" of St. John the Evangelist (he was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of St. John), set up Eve and Mary as type and antitype, laying the foundation for calling Mary "the new Eve". The oldest prayer to Mary that we have today, the "Sub tuum praesidium", might predate the Council of Nicea. Those are some early examples.

So the particular Marian doctrines and devotions developed over time, and in stages. But they did not appear out of thin air, and neither was their development seen as unnatural or contrary to devotion to Christ our God. The "Marian seed", so to speak, was always there.

I never liked the seed comparison. Seriously. That's fine for trees; but translate that into 'a tiny concept 'x' contains the germ of a full fledged dogmatic oak tree with branches and leaves our forefathers couldn't possibly have made out and thus believed in before', well then you're just a short step away from innovating dogma under the guise of Tradition. The Apostles command us to contend earnestly for the Faith having been delivered once for all to the saints. Clarifying (in the face of heresy) in philosophical language no less and coming up with definitive creeds, doesn't mean an acorn just cracked .

 

[Beloved2018]

They won't change the doctrine of believing that grace comes through Mary and through the sacraments.

They COULD explain things better, but when?
At the Mass? I'm told it's not a classroom...I've spoken to some priests about this. At least 3 that I'm friendly with.

They're trying bible study, but people don't understand why they need to know the bible...

I'm speaking about Italy...I don't really know what's going on in the states anymore.

I grew up Lutheran and they too are Sacramental. It's essential to their understanding of grace alone/faith alone. We believe; But what comes before that? What enables us to believe? Grace. God's free election. His choice. His gift. His power. He moves first. Grace precedes, enlivens and preserves everything in the Christian life. Here's the thing, while God can and does (I believe), move outside His Church, His People, His Bride, the normal means by which God chooses to bestow the grace necessary for faith (even faith alone) is from within that gathering (of which He says, where two or three are...I am there). He (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) reside, that is, have made their home among the people of God. It is from within them, that grace comes. This grace unites individuals to God and to the Community. We become one Body as Paul testifies.

Mary is a member of the Church. She is a Mother to Christians in the sense that all Christian women are mothers and by their prayers and sacrifices become conduits of God's providential care to others, they become conduits of grace, fountains of living water. Mary too is a conduit of grace. A very important one. She, being the mother of Christ was there at the advent of grace as it flowed into the rest of the Church, beginning at the Annunciation. As a member of the Church, she gave birth to Him who is Grace, nurtured that Grace quietly with Joseph for 30 years, prompted the ebbing flow of that Grace into an active ministry (and thus faith was aroused), worried (and I'm sure prayed) over the state of that Grace for 3 more years, then stood by it, while it was going through it's most trying moments and did not abandon it. And when this Grace overcame the works of the Devil, it found her, ready again, to be a willing conduit for God's saving mission in the world. This Grace is Jesus. This Grace is the Holy Spirit. This Grace is our Salvation. We have a lot of people to thank when we get to heaven. Noah, without whom we would not even be here. Moses for being a conduit of God's Holy Law. Abraham for getting up and going to the land God would show him. So many people. So many, 'blessed be's'. But Mary alone (and perhaps Joseph) cared for our Savior and thus our Salvation from beginning to end. They may not have understood everything...they may have even made mistakes at times...but it was the providence of God that determined that our Salvation would be co-mingled with the messiness of a mother and a father who deserves thanks for raising a wonderful child...an upright man...a mother who never stops being a mother.....a mother whose human job of mothering, by the Spirit's design is forever saturated with God.

 

[bèlla]

Mary is a member of the Church. She is a Mother to Christians in the sense that all Christian women are mothers and by their prayers and sacrifices become conduits of God's providential care to others, they become conduits of grace, fountains of living water.

I think it's better to speak clearly and admit this is a Catholic tradition. The parallel you are seeking to make is with Eve/Sarah but there is no biblical support for her elevation in the way it has developed. I acknowledge she had an important role to play as did Abraham, David, Peter and the rest. But all were vessels in the service of the Lord. Some are given as examples for their character or behavior for our edification. It is emphasized in light of their imperfections and these are often acknowledged in their story.

Sarah is mentioned more than any woman in the bible and lauded as one of the faithful in Hebrews. Hers is the lone death we have that included her age. No one else has that honor. And she is the example referenced for wives in the New Testament by Peter, not Mary.

I don't believe it is accidental that little is said of Mary and Joseph. It would be easy to venerate them both in light of their service. And the adoration would be sincere. It would be an honest acknowledgment of their place in the faith. The bible references imperfect servants because we share their fallibility.

If we address the topic from the natural we arrive at the same point. Christ's disciples knew His mother. They've been in her company. Nevertheless, their silence is telling. They point elsewhere in every instance.

I would posit that the Lord doesn't want us dwelling on either. The omission of information regarding His childhood and the limited interactions that have been shared are for a reason.

Even the words she uttered upon the angel's message reference the ordinary. A faithful woman who longed to be a mother who expresses the joy of answered prayer. Hannah's promise is significant. To give the first fruit of her womb without complaint is a mark of faith. How many could do the same?

The primary purpose of the New Testament is to illustrate the fulfillment of the promises echoed in the Old Testament. I was raised Roman Catholic. I'm very familiar with the teachings and I found my way back to God through Judaism. I know them well.

Judaism's matriarch is Sarah. God enabled her to bear a child at an advanced age. And while she's an example for many, there's no veneration in the liturgy or special favor accorded to her because of it. Her humanity is foremost as is Abraham's.

While there's no precedent for divinity in the guise we see in Christ. There are definite examples of a divine hand in human conception in the Old Testament. And in every instance, they are viewed as men and women. Irrespective of the spiritual aid they received in conception.

In your opinion, why is Mary's role only lauded by the Catholic Church? Why doesn't the bible demonstrate the same?

 

[Beloved2018]

I think it's better to speak clearly and admit this is a Catholic tradition.

I thought I was speaking clearly. Sorry.

The parallel you are seeking to make is with Eve/Sarah

The parallel that I am seeking to make is the one I'm trying to make. Sarah belongs in there too. This isn't an either/or. Mary was a mother to our Lord in every way a human being has a mother. That is part of the wonder of the Incarnation. Jesus was like us in all things except sin. It's simply, that our Jesus has a salvic mission; meaning that Mary's mothering of Him would include the mothering of a Life that is salvically oriented.

but there is no biblical support for her elevation in the way it has developed.

I can only really address doctrine, so I'll do that. 1) We know she is the Mother of God, because we're not Nestorians. 2) The Immaculate Conception is something that is particular to Rome so I'm not going to defend it one way or the other. 3) The Assumption is just that, an assumption (there's no excess there that I see. Christ can take his mother's body into heaven. The question from my vantage point is, 'Is it true? ' ) 4) There are perpetual virgins in the world. Did I miss any?

I acknowledge she had an important role to play as did Abraham, David, Peter and the rest. But all were vessels in the service of the Lord. Some are given as examples for their character or behavior for our edification. It is emphasized in light of their imperfections and these are often acknowledged in their story.

We just have to be careful not to lump everyone in together imho. Everyone is unique. Everyone's relationship with Christ is unique and they contribute to the Body in their own unique way (what we say about a foot...we don't necessarily say about a hand for example...but all are necessary).
And she had imperfections...sure. They weren't necessarily sins.....but yes... there were times when she didn't understand things....we know this from Scripture

Sarah is mentioned more than any woman in the bible and lauded as one of the faithful in Hebrews. Hers is the lone death we have that included her age. No one else has that honor. And she is the example referenced for wives in the New Testament by Peter, not Mary.

Would you say that Mary is an example for wives? I just need a little clarification.

I don't believe it is accidental that little is said of Mary and Joseph. It would be easy to venerate them both in light of their service. And the adoration would be sincere. It would be an honest acknowledgment of their place in the faith. The bible references imperfect servants because we share their fallibility.

So are you saying that the reason the Bible references them so little (in your estimation) , is because somehow we couldn't relate to them or that the saints the Bible does reference are more imperfect than Joseph and Mary and therefore are mentioned more? Again, just looking for clarification.

If we address the topic from the natural we arrive at the same point. Christ's disciples knew His mother. They've been in her company. Nevertheless, their silence is telling. They point elsewhere in every instance.

I disagree. But let's move on for now.

I would posit that the Lord doesn't want us dwelling on either. The omission of information regarding His childhood and the limited interactions that have been shared are for a reason.

Let me ask you this, beginning with His return to Nazareth at say approx. age 2-30, do you consider this part of His life salvic (important to your salvation/redemption)in any way?

Even the words she uttered upon the angel's message reference the ordinary. A faithful woman who longed to be a mother who expresses the joy of answered prayer. Hannah's promise is significant. To give the first fruit of her womb without complaint is a mark of faith. How many could do the same?

Agreed.

The primary purpose of the New Testament is to illustrate the fulfillment of the promises echoed in the Old Testament. I was raised Roman Catholic. I'm very familiar with the teachings and I found my way back to God through Judaism. I know them well.

That you found your way back to God, blesses me. Thank you for sharing that with me.

Judaism's matriarch is Sarah. God enabled her to bear a child at an advanced age. And while she's an example for many, there's no veneration in the liturgy or special favor accorded to her because of it. Her humanity is foremost as is Abraham's.

In Judaism's?

While there's no precedent for divinity in the guise we see in Christ. There are definite examples of a divine hand in human conception in the Old Testament. And in every instance, they are viewed as men and women. Irrespective of the spiritual aid they received in conception.

Mary is not divine. And I don't merely mean to give lip service to that.

In your opinion, why is Mary's role only lauded by the Catholic Church? Why doesn't the bible demonstrate the same?

Mary's role in the Catholic Church is a strange one. Unless it's a feast day or some such, she is only referenced twice in the 'New' Mass (a bit more in the tradition Latin Mass), contrast this with the amount of literature, devotions, litanies, ect. that Catholics are surrounded by. In other words, Marian 'devotion' for lack of a better word, is not anchored properly in the corporate liturgical life of the Church. In Eastern Orthodoxy, you actually have less official dogmatic pronouncements than Rome (No Immaculate Conception, no Mediatrix, ect.), but also unlike Rome, she is commemorated throughout the Divine Liturgy even more.
So in answer to your question...there's a 'yes' and a 'no'. In some respects devotion to Mary is a particularly Roman Catholic phenomenon, but in a broader sense, it isn't.
In regard to Scripture, There's a wide spectrum of what is acceptable (from my own research into the matter yrs ago). Some Catholics think all doctrine is at least implicitly contained in Scripture , others seem to think that revelation is only partly found in Tradition and partly in Scripture. So some would say, 'All these Marian ideas are found in Scripture', others would say, 'They're not all found in Scripture, but it doesn't matter.'
As for me, I'm not a good Catholic. I'm still struggling through a lot of stuff, including some of the Catholic doctrines concerning Mary. If something appears to flatly contradict Scripture, then I ask myself, 'Is it me...or them?' That's where I am right now, trying to sort through the whole 'me or them' thing.

 

[ChicanaRose]

What do you believe about Marian apparitions? Do you believe in them? And do you believe that they are Mary or are they a demon? And which ones do you accept?

I personally accept just two Our lady of Walsingham and Our Lady of Guadelupe

These are extra-biblical beliefs. I don't believe they come from God.

 

[ChicanaRose]

I saw this thread last night and felt a familiar discomfort in my spirit when reading the prophecy from Fatima. When I retired to bed I did not rest soundly. The subject kept thrusting itself in my head desiring my attention. That is very similar to the feeling I had while reading the post.

I've had a lot experience with demonic presences. And while they will falsify much there's often a central element in their communication that I detect. It usually centers on one subject. It's very singular in nature. A place where they want you to place your attention. Not merely a portion. All of it.

I don't believe this is of God.

I can relate. I've had similar experiences of lacking peace, when I used to be fixated on Marian apparitions. I don't think this is of God either.

 

[Mountainmike]

I can relate. I've had similar experiences of lacking peace, when I used to be fixated on Marian apparitions. I don't think this is of God either.

But then we read " a good tree cannot bear bad fruit" " a bad tree cannot bear good fruit". The apparitions are judged on the fruits of conversion and returning to faith, so clearly a good tree.