Authority

[LaRae]

Furthermore Catholics are not required to even believe in any apparitions....and not all apparitions are even approved by the Church to start with.

LaRae

 

[DHK]

"No basis for this. Rather, it is an outright lie. Read my excerpt from the Catechism. You made this up to suit your needs."
"Furthermore Catholics are not required to even believe in any apparitions....and not all apparitions are even approved by the Church to start with."

http://www.holylove.org
---Read about the visions and revelations given to Maureen Sweeney-Kyle
Read about all the apparitions throughout the centuries at: http://www.apparitions.org
MAJOR APPARITIONS OF JESUS AND MARY YEAR LOCATION VISIONARIES & Approval Codes
1347 Siena, Italy St. Catherine [Full Church Approval]
1531 Guadalupe, Mexico Juan Diego [Full Church Approval]
1600s Agreda, Spain St. Mary of Agreda [Full Church Approval]
1830 Rue Du Bac, France Catherine Laboure [Full Church Approval]
1836 OL of Victories, Paris Father Genettes [Full Church Approval]
1840 Blangy, France Sister Justine Bisqueyburu [Full Church Approval]
1846 La Salette, France Melanie Calvat & Maximin Giraud [Full Church Approval]
1858 Lourdes, France Bernadette Soubirous [Full Church Approval]
1871 Pontmain, France Eugene and Joseph Barbadette (Five Children and one baby) [NEW]
1876 Pellevoisin, France Estelle Faguette [Full Church Approval]
1877 Gietrzwald, Poland Justyna Szafrynska, Barbara Samulowska [Full Church Approval]
1878 Corato, Italy Luisa Piccarreta [D]
1879 Knock, Ireland 15 people [Full Church Approval]
1884 Rome, Italy Pope Leo XIII [Full Church Approval]
1904 Poland St. Maximilian Kolbe [Full Church Approval]
1916 - 1953 Caserta, Italy Maria Valtorta (Poem of the Man-God) [Church Disapproval] [NEW]
1917 Fatima, Portugal Lucia, Francisco, & Jacinta [Full Church Approval]
1918 San Giovanni, Italy Padre Pio [Full Church Approval]
1920 Verdun, Quebec, Canada Emma Blanche Curotte
1922 Montreal, Canada Georgette Faniel (stigmatist)
1925 Tuy, Spain Sister Lucia
circa 1929 - 1930 Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil Sister Amália de Jesus Flagelado
1932 Beauraing, Belgium 5 Voisin & Degeimbre children [Full Church Approval]
1933 Banneaux, Belgium Mariette Beco [Full Church Approval]
1937 Poland Blessed Faustina [Full Church Approval]
1945 Amsterdam, Holland Ida Peerdeman
1947 Montichiari, Italy Pierina Gilli
1947 Tre Fontane, Rome Bruno Cornacchiola
1948 Lipa, Philippines Novice Teresita
1950 - 1975 (circa) Necedah, Wisconsin USA Mary Ann Van Hoof [X]
1952 India Fr. Louis M. Shouriah, S.J.
1953 Sabana Grande, Puerto Rico Ramonita Belen, Isidra Belen, Juan Angel Collado
1954 Ohio, USA Sister Mildred Neuzil
1954 Annavore, Ardboe, Co. Tyrone, Ireland John Quinn & Anne Hannah [D]
1954 Seredne, Ukraine Anna
1961 Garabandal, Spain Conchita Gonzales, Mari Loli Mazon, Jacinta Gonzales, Mari Cruz Gonzales [D]
1964; 1984-Present Pederobba (Treviso), Italy Paola Albertini
1964 San Damiano, Italy Mama Rosa Quattrini
1967 - ? ? Francis Klug
1968 Italy Mama Carmela Carabelli
1968 Zeitun, Egypt Thousands [Full Church Approval]
1970s Bayside, New York Veronica Leukin [Church Disapproval]
1970 Vladimir Prison, Russia Josyp Terelya
1971 Rome, Italy Marisa Rossi [Discouraged by Bishop]
1972-1978; 1982 Dozule, France Madeline Aumont [Discouraged by Bishop]
1972 Milan, Italy Fr. Stefano Gobbi
1973 Akita, Japan Sister Agnes Sasagawa [Full Church Approval]
1974 Ninh Loi, Vietnam Stephen Ho Ngoc Ahn
1976 Betania, Venezuela Maria Esperanza (stigmatist) & Others
1980 El Escorial, Spain Amparo Cuevas
1980 Cuapa, Nicaragua Edward Bernardo Martinez [Full Church Approval]
1981 Millbury , Massachusetts, USA Eileen George
1981 Medjugorje, Bosnia-Herzegovina Six young people [Under Investigation] [Letter sent to Vatican] [NEW]
1981 Kibeho, Rwanda, Africa Six girls and one boy
1982 Damascus, Syria Myrna Nazzour (stigmatist)
1983? Toowoomba , Australia Debra Geileskey [Discouraged by Bishop]
1983 San Nicolas, Argentina Gladys Quiroga de Motta
1985 Ballinspittle, Ireland Two O'Mahony women
1985 Carns Grotto, Ireland Four girls
1985 Oliveto Citra, Italy Children and many people
1985 Naju, Korea Julia Kim (stigmatist) [Discouraged by Bishop] [NEW]
1985 Switzerland Vassula Ryden [Under Investigation] [Letter sent to Vatican]
1985 Cleveland, Ohio, USA Maureen Sweeney [Discouraged by Bishop]
1985 Ohlau, Poland Casimierz Domanski
1985 Massillon, Ohio, USA Robert Hartman (Sinner/Saint) [Discouraged by Bishop]
1986 - present Wilmington, California Patricia Soto [D]
1986 Manilla, Philippines Numerous soldiers
1986-1996 Girgenti, Malta Guza Mifsud [D]
1987 Terra Blanca, Mexico Three children
1987 Bessbrook, North Ireland Beulah Lynch & mark Trenor
1987 Ukraine Josyp Terelya, Maria Kizyn & thousands
1987 Inchigeela, Ireland Sally Ann & Judy Considine
1987 Ecuador Patricia (Pachi) Talbott
1987 Rome Sr. Anna Ali
1987 Conyers, Georgia, USA Nancy Fowler
1987 Midwest, USA Mariamante [Bishop's Approval]
1987 - ? Angüera, Bahia, Brazil Pedro Régis Alves
1988 Achill, Ireland Christina Gallagher (stigmatist) [Under Investigation]
1988 Phoenix, Arizona, USA Estella Ruiz [D]
1988 Scottsdale, Arizona, USA Nine young people and Fr. Jack Spaulding [D]
1989 Canada Zdenko "Jim" Singer
1989 Marlboro, New Jersey Joseph Januszkiewicz [Under Investigation]
1990's Marmora, Ontario, Canada Several different visionaries [D]
1990's Lincoln, Nebraska Dr. Mary Jane Even [Discouraged by Bishop] [NEW]
1990 Denver, Colorado Theresa Lopez & Veronica Garcia [Discouraged by Bishop]
1990 Hillside , Illinois USA Joseph Reinholtz [D]
1990-1995 Litmanova,Slovakia Ivetka Korcakova and Katka Ceselkova [Full Church Approval]
1991 Mozul, Iraq Dina Basher (stigmatist)
1991 Arkansas & Texas, USA Cyndi Cain [Under Investigation]
1991 San Bruno, California, USA Carlos Lopez & Jorge Zavala [D]
1992 Scottsdale, Arizona, USA Carol Ameche
1992 Enfield, Connecticut, USA Neil Harrington, Jr.
1992 Falmouth, Kentucky USA Sandy [Discouraged by Bishop]
1992-1997 Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil Raymundo Lopes
1993 Manilla, Phillippines Allan Rudio [Discouraged by Bishop]
1993 Belleville, Illinois, USA Ray Doiron
1993 Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Rita Ring [D]
1993
1993 Rochester, New York, USA John Leary [D]
1994 Emmitsburg , Maryland, USA Gianna Talone Sullivan [D]
1994 Arlington, Virginia, USA Joseph B. Reyes
1994 - present Conchabamba, Bolivia Catalina Rivas - (stigmatist) [Bishop's Approval] [NEW]
1995 - present Phoenix, Arizona USA Pat Mundorf [D]
1996 Brooklyn, New York USA Terrence Ross [Permission Denied]
19?? Nowra, New South Wales, Australia William Kamm, Little Pebble [Discouraged by Bishop]
19?? Hungary Sister Natalie (stigmatist)
19?? Italy Mother Elena P. Leonardi (stigmatist)

The Catholic Church has an open revelation. People down throughout the ages have been receiving divine messages through apparitions. These revelations become a part of the greater "revelation" of God, just as the "traditions" of the church, the papal and church council decrees, have also become a part of the "greater revelation" that the Catholic Church has. They have an open revelation. We do not. We have a closed revelation, the Word of God--the Bible. There is no revelation outside of that. It is therefore our final authority.
DHK

 

[chz]

Originally posted by DHK:
The Catholic Church has an open revelation. People down throughout the ages have been receiving divine messages through apparitions. These revelations become a part of the greater "revelation" of God, just as the "traditions" of the church, the papal and church council decrees, have also become a part of the "greater revelation" that the Catholic Church has. They have an open revelation. We do not. We have a closed revelation, the Word of God--the Bible. There is no revelation outside of that. It is therefore our final authority.

Just a couple of notes...

1) The Catholic Church investigates apparitions for fraud. Approval of an apparition does not bind a Catholic to believe any part of it. This has been said and backed up with the Catechism a couple times now.

2) The Catholic Church goes through painstaking effort to provide to the world a Catechism. It complies its doctrines and backs them up with reasoning from scripture or other documents based upon scripture. No other Church has dared to create such a work and expose it to the world for scrutiny. I would suggest that you back up any assertions about what you think Catholics believe with solid references from the Catechism taken in context.

3) There is little question about whether or not God's Word is everyone's final authority. I'm not sure why you keep suggesting that Catholics don't believe this. The issue is a) "What is God's Word?" and b) "Who has the authority to interpret it?" A good place to start for these questions concerning Catholics would be here: THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

Perhaps you can answer some questions for me(optional of course). For you, who has the authority to interpret scripture? Who determines which passages of Scripture are to be taken literally and which are figurative? Who determines what passages that seem to contradict beliefs such as "faith alone" really mean?

If your answer is "God" or "the Holy Spirit":
a) How do we know who is telling the truth when two sincere "Bible Believers" claim the Holy Spirit interprets a passage in two different ways?
b) Do you participate in a group Bible Study? If you do, why would you need study the Bible with a group when you are receiving the Holy Spirit as guidance?
c) Since many of the interpretations you receive from the Holy Spirit are not explicit in the Bible (perhaps this is a bad assumption?), do you think you are receiving revelation from a source outside of the Bible?

[ March 21, 2002, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: chz ]

 

[GraceSaves]

DHK,

Your attempts to prove something that is beyond provable are now just starting to get annoying. You're being highly disrespectful. I've given you DIRECT QUOTES from the Catholic Church on "furhter revelation," as well as how it treats "visions" and "apparitions."

Who are you to say that Jesus doesn't appear in visions to people? Either way, this has nothing to do with "further revelation," as the Catholic Church does not make doctrine out of someone's vision or apparition.

You're being mean and making lies. We've already proven they're lies.

 

[Briguy]

C and GS, I read some of the revelation given to Maureen ? at the site DHK listed. What officially does the Catholic church do with those things. Actually, What did they say about that actual revelation. The two things I read were messages directly from Jesus and from Mary (Blessed Mother as she was referred to). I want to be honest here. If the words of Jesus are accepted as the real words of Jesus then that would be the actual word of God and would have authority in the church right? It would have to be if it is really is Jesus talking. Do you see where I am going with that logic. Doctrine could potentially change with each accepted revelation then. Actually, with the esteem given Mary the words she says would have some authority as well (I would think anyway) Let me know what you think of my logic here. I am being serious and I hope I am not sounding like I am trying to be tricky. Looking forward to a response,

In Christ,
Brian

 

[chz]

Originally posted by The Briguy:
C and GS, I read some of the revelation given to Maureen ? at the site DHK listed. What officially does the Catholic church do with those things. Actually, What did they say about that actual revelation. The two things I read were messages directly from Jesus and from Mary (Blessed Mother as she was referred to). I want to be honest here. If the words of Jesus are accepted as the real words of Jesus then that would be the actual word of God and would have authority in the church right? It would have to be if it is really is Jesus talking. Do you see where I am going with that logic. Doctrine could potentially change with each accepted revelation then. Actually, with the esteem given Mary the words she says would have some authority as well (I would think anyway) Let me know what you think of my logic here. I am being serious and I hope I am not sounding like I am trying to be tricky. Looking forward to a response.

Here's a link to a sourced document (don't know how official the sources are though): What About Marian Apparitions?

I wish I could give you a catechism link that lays out the approval process and what each approval level means but I don't think it is there (nor do I see it as something that needs to be there). The key is that if private revelation conflicts with the closed public revelation, it won't be approved. That keeps the Church out of hot water with private revelation teaching something new in regards to our salvation.

 

[Briguy]

chz, Thanks for the reply. I went to the link and I do understand better now. It all seems like a very complicated process. Many issues within the RCC seem complicated seeing how Jesus was just a simple carpenter

One paragragh at the site was disturbing. It says:
"It is also noteworthy that even in the case of an authentic private revelation, it often happens that some error in the receiving or the transmitting of the revelation may occur because of the ever present human nature of the visionary. Several authentic private revelations that have received official Church approval have also had some secondary elements of human error, even when the visionary has been a canonized saint.3"

This sounds like something that is in the doctrine to try to cover any inconsistencies. It seems a little to convienent to me. Safegaurds like that are usually in place when there are problems already going on. Hope that made sense. Please comment on the section of the writing I copied. Thanks much

In Christ alone,
Brian

 

[GraceSaves]

I just want to throw something into the mix.

A common misconception among non-Catholics is that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (of Mary) was newly presented in 1854. This is often cited as a recent (at least in the last 150 years) instance of the Catholic Church "adding beliefs."

Also, even though I don't know much about the vision of Mary at Lourdes (one of the most widely known), I've heard something about Mary saying, in that vision, "I am the Immaculate Conception." Was it that this "private revelation" became an official church doctrine? Sounds fishy, doesn't it?

Yes, it does. But then you look back 350 years, and you will read a sermon by Dr. Martin Luther, after he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church, nonetheless, about how beautiful it is that Mary was immaculately conceived. Luther, who rejected much of Catholic teachings (in spread Sola Scriptura everywhere), held on tightly to the teachings on Mary (all accept for prayer with her). Therefore, if Luther believed in it, it is obvious that the Immaculate Conception was around well before this famous "vision" and well before the Catholic Church made it an "official teaching."

The purpose for all this? That these "revelations" that people receive, and as was stated above by someone else, as long as they do not go contrary to the already closed revelation, are not in conflict. If a revelation reveals all kinds of new and odd things (think Mormonism), obviously these are rejected.

Basically, the vision at Lourdes, true or not, was not something that is outside the boundaries of the already closed revelation.

Confusing, yes, but I just wanted to "try" and make the point.

 

[Gloria1]

Good point. The reality of the Immaculate Conception always existed but did not become manifest into the human mind until then. It just shows that the Church is the unfolding of Gods plan here on earth.

[ March 21, 2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Gloria1 ]

 

[chz]

Originally posted by The Briguy:
One paragragh at the site was disturbing. It says:
"It is also noteworthy that even in the case of an authentic private revelation, it often happens that some error in the receiving or the transmitting of the revelation may occur because of the ever present human nature of the visionary. Several authentic private revelations that have received official Church approval have also had some secondary elements of human error, even when the visionary has been a canonized saint.3"

This sounds like something that is in the doctrine to try to cover any inconsistencies. It seems a little to convienent to me. Safegaurds like that are usually in place when there are problems already going on. Hope that made sense. Please comment on the section of the writing I copied.

I'm not sure I see the problem here. It would be one thing if Church approved apparitions were required belief. They aren't though and this is simply another reason why. I don't think this could be considered a doctrine either. The official Church teaching is that Catholics don't have to believe anything revealed through a private revelation that isn't official Church teaching. The statement in question is simply supporting evidence as to why the Church takes this stance. Does that help?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:

Who are you to say that Jesus doesn't appear in visions to people? Either way, this has nothing to do with "further revelation," as the Catholic Church does not make doctrine out of someone's vision or apparition.
You're being mean and making lies. We've already proven they're lies.

Your argument is with God not with me.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In the past God spoke in dreams and visions by the Old Testament prophets to the fathers of Israel. That is the plain teaching of verse one. Divers manners means visions, dreams, audible voices, etc. It means in different ways.

Verse two teaches us very plainly that in these days God speaks to us not in visions or in dreams as He did in the Old Testament, but rather through His Son. He has given us a revelation of His Son in His Word. In fact the very Son of God is called the Word, logos. I need no other revelation outside of that Word, the completed and perfected Word of God, made complete when the Book of Revelation was written.
When "Jesus" appears to someone in a vision, it is not Jesus, but another spirit posing himself as Jesus. "In the last days perilous times shall come."
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

Last I checked, Saul was converted to Christianity after he had a vision of Jesus that made him go blind. Then he became Paul. Furthermore, his inspired letters were written after he was converted, so this "vision" of Jesus that converted him was not only after Jesus had ascended into Heaven, and this vision was used to help Saul in a special way.

If God doesn't provide people with visions anymore, and Paul didn't have this vision while he was writing his letters, how do you explain this?

 

[HankD]

Dear GS,

You wrote...

>>If God doesn't provide people with visions anymore, and Paul didn't have this vision while he was writing his letters, how do you explain this? >>

The canon of Scripture had not yet been completed when Paul had his vision. If the Book of Revelation (apocalypse) was the last book of the Bible to be written, then thats when the visions ended (with John's visions) after he laid down his pen. This is what is held by most Baptists and many other Christians.

HankD

[ March 21, 2002, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by chz:

I'm not sure I see the problem here. It would be one thing if Church approved apparitions were required belief. They aren't though and this is simply another reason why. I don't think this could be considered a doctrine either. The official Church teaching is that Catholics don't have to believe anything revealed through a private revelation that isn't official Church teaching. The statement in question is simply supporting evidence as to why the Church takes this stance. Does that help?

Whether or not they are required to believe in them is an entirely different matter. The fact remains that the message received is a "revelation." If it is a revelation, and it is from God, then why would I not want to believe in it? I want to believe the very words of God. That is what this discussion centers around: authority. Revelation is authoritative. If a person has a revelation, that person is saying that he or she has received the very words of God. If you choose not to believe, according to your own faith, you are choosing not to believe the very words of God. Right?
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by chz:

3) There is little question about whether or not God's Word is everyone's final authority. I'm not sure why you keep suggesting that Catholics don't believe this. The issue is a) "What is God's Word?" and b) "Who has the authority to interpret it?" A good place to start for these questions concerning Catholics would be here: THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

This is a flip-flop in your position. You now agree that the Bible is the final authority. That is sola scriptura, the one doctrine that the Catholics so hate, and claim that the reformers invented (which is not true).
The issue is "What is God's Word?" That may be an issue with you, but it never has been an issue for us. It is the 66 books of the Bible, the written revelation of God. This has always been the accepted position from the time of the Apostles onward, except for the Catholic Church.
"Who has the authority to interpret it?" Again, not an issue for us, but it is for you. Every believer has the authority to study the Bible and come to his own decisions. Jesus Himself commanded us to "Search the Scriptures." Paul said, "Study to show yourselves approved unto God." Jesus again said, "Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures." It is our responsibility to study, know, and interpret the Scriptures according to the enlightenment that the Holy Spirit gives each individual. The magesterium does not take the place of the Holy Spirt. That is just not in the Bible. 1Pet.2:5,9 teach that we are priests before God, each and every believer. I do not need a priest to interpret the Bible for me. I am a priest before God. He gives me the Holy Spirit and grants me understanding in the Word.
I looked at your website, The Transmission of Divine Revelation, and basically it says the same thing that I have been saying all along. That is, that you (the Catholics) accept the Bible as a major source of revelation, and second, you accept sacred tradition as another source of revelation. You also accept apparitions, but it doesn't get into that very much. You have an open system of revelation, even if you just consider the first two sources of revelation. Tradition is still on-going. Magesterial decrees, papal bulls, vatican councils, etc., are always on-going. You have an open revelation. All of these things are included in your source of authority, your revelation.
Whereas the Bible is our only source of revelation, the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. It is all-sufficient for us in all things pertaining to doctrine and faith. We need no other authority; no other revelation.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by chz:

Perhaps you can answer some questions for me(optional of course). For you, who has the authority to interpret scripture? Who determines which passages of Scripture are to be taken literally and which are figurative? Who determines what passages that seem to contradict beliefs such as "faith alone" really mean?

If your answer is "God" or "the Holy Spirit":
a) How do we know who is telling the truth when two sincere "Bible Believers" claim the Holy Spirit interprets a passage in two different ways?
b) Do you participate in a group Bible Study? If you do, why would you need study the Bible with a group when you are receiving the Holy Spirit as guidance?
c) Since many of the interpretations you receive from the Holy Spirit are not explicit in the Bible (perhaps this is a bad assumption?), do you think you are receiving revelation from a source outside of the Bible?

"Who has the authority to interpret Scripture?"
? every born-again believer has the authority to interpret Scripture. (1Cor.2:12)

"Who determines which passages of Scripture are to be taken literally and which are to be taken figuratively"
? In one word: context. To give further explanation, it is good for every believer to know some principles of hermeneutics. Here are some basic principles that I learned from John Mcarthur:
1. The Literal Principle
Take the Bible literally, unless the context dictates otherwise.
2. The Historical Principle
Study the historical and cultural setting of the time that it was written. Know who it was written to, why it was written, who wrote it, something about the people of that time, etc.
3. The Grammatical Principle
Break the verses or the passage down grammatically. Most major thoughts center around the verbs. Understand meanings of words and their relationship to the rest of the sentence. Know your grammar. Learn to diagram sentences.
4. The Application Principle
The Bible is a timeless book. It is applicable for every age. How does the passage apply for us today?
NOTE: I did not go and copy this from a website. This is what I remember, and what I have learned.
Basically, with good study habits, the Bible interprets itself.

"Who determines what passages that seem to contradict beliefs such as "faith alone" really mean?"
? See the above. With careful study, I am not afraid to tackle any Scripture in the Bible. "All Scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable." That means the hard passages too. The Bible does not contradict itself. Everything has a solution.

Two sincere Bible-believers may come to different conclusions on some things. If those "things" are apart from the fundamentals of the faith, then we have the soul liberty to agree to disagree, and still maintain fellowship one with another. There are certain issues that will divide. Very obviously doctrine divides. Christ said: I come to bring a sword. The message that He preached was not all love. In fact He preached more on Hell than He did on Heaven. Doctrine divides. You come to your own conclusions through very careful Bible study. "Be fully persuaded in your own mind." "Be a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

"Do you participate in a group Bible Study? If you do, why would you need study the Bible with a group when you are receiving the Holy Spirit as guidance?"
? First, if all participating are believers, then all receive the Holy Spirit to guide them. Second, God has ordained that we have teachers to guide and instruct us. I do not condone the type of Bible Study where there is no leader (teacher), everyone shares their opinion, and the end result is pooled ignorance. "God has set some in the church... "teachers." The Holy Spirit illumines the believer's heart that he may understand the mysteries of the Bible, that he would not otherwise understand. That is the teaching of 1Cor.2:12. The Holy Spirit was not given to give us new revelation, but to help us in understanding the revelation that we have already.

"c) Since many of the interpretations you receive from the Holy Spirit are not explicit in the Bible (perhaps this is a bad assumption?), do you think you are receiving revelation from a source outside of the Bible?"
? We do not receive any revelation outside of the Bible. We can use outside resources such as historical references, and such. But our final authority is always God's Word. Often it may be an outside source that helps determine the meaning: a dictionary, encyclopedia, etc. But it still God's Word that is authoritative. The only revelation we have is in the Bible--God's Word. Our duty is to find out the proper meaning and sense of the passage of Scripture before us. That is not the duty laid upon any body of people such as a magesterium; it is the duty of every Christian.
DHK

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Gloria1:
Good point. The reality of the Immaculate Conception always existed but did not become manifest into the human mind until then. It just shows that the Church is the unfolding of Gods plan here on earth.

I am new in this particular forum. Obviously, many of the arguments between people here are based on an understandings from past arguments.

I do have a couple of questions though.

First, what scripture do you use to support the idea of the immaculate conception?

Second, if there is an apparent disagreement between papal decree, tradition, and scripture, which do you trust?

 

[Pauline]

Scott,
There can never be a disagreement between Scripture, Sacred Tradition and papal decree. It's as simple as that. Scripture and Sacred Tradition make up one deposit of Faith.

To All,
There is a big difference between public Revelation, given by God for all people. And private revelation, in which God shines light on the personal path of someone to help them find His will. Haven't all of you had times when you prayed and when God gave you guidance through a Bible verse, or through a person or circumstance in your life? That would be private revelation.

Apparitions are not part of public Revelation. So we don't have to accept or believe them. But that doesn't mean that the true ones lack value. They can be useful to support and strengthen one's acceptance of and belief in public Revelation.

That happened at Lourdes. Bernadette was an unlearned child. There was no way that she would understand the title: the Immaculate Conception.
The Church had always taught the Immaculate Conception, though no pope had said officially that it was taught by public Revelation. Then the pope did make that declaration.

And then not too long after that the lovely lady in the apparition to little, unlearned Bernadette told that young girl, "I am the Immaculate Conception." Bernadette, knowing her own limitations, kept repeating the title over and over to herself as she ran to the priest's house to tell him. And that title convinced the priest that the appartition, indeed, came from God for His own purposes.

To understand the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, one has to consider the nature of God and His holiness and rejection of sin. One further has to consider that it took One Who was untouched by sin to redeem mankind. And then one should study the Ark in the OT and the Holy of Holies. That teaches one more about what had to take place in order for Jesus to take flesh and blood from Mary's flesh and blood. And what had to take place within her in order for her to be fitted to be the NT Ark which would bear Him in her womb. The NT only carries on what was foretold in the OT and of which the reality is in heaven.

It is scandalous to us Catholics when Protestants seem to lower the dignity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You ask: How is this done? By teaching that Mary sinned, that she was not kept the pure Ark by God Himself. And further, by teaching that after she had borne the Second Person of the Triune God, she had sexual relations with a man and bore other children.

Oops. Got to go. UNP
Pauline.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by chz:


2) The Catholic Church goes through painstaking effort to provide to the world a Catechism. It complies its doctrines and backs them up with reasoning from scripture or other documents based upon scripture. No other Church has dared to create such a work and expose it to the world for scrutiny. I would suggest that you back up any assertions about what you think Catholics believe with solid references from the Catechism taken in context.

Actually, the authority you grant, whether in whole or in part, to the catechism we grant to the Bible alone.

"Who has the authority to interpret it?"

Biblicists, which includes many but not all self-proclaimed Baptists, believe that the Bible is a self-authenticating book. It declares its own authority. We trust scripture to interpret/explain scripture. The believer is to be guided by the Holy Spirit as they are conformed to the image of Christ through the study and application of God's Word.

For you, who has the authority to interpret scripture?

I answered above. How do you answer?

Who determines which passages of Scripture are to be taken literally and which are figurative?

I could not improve on DHK's answer.

Who determines what passages that seem to contradict beliefs such as "faith alone" really mean?

Context will resolve most of these problems as well as viewing the passage in light of other scripture. I am very skeptical of any "doctrine" that is built on less than two or three distinct passages of scripture. A single passage can be easily misinterpretted.

a) How do we know who is telling the truth when two sincere "Bible Believers" claim the Holy Spirit interprets a passage in two different ways?

The one who can build the strongest biblical case.

b) Do you participate in a group Bible Study? If you do, why would you need study the Bible with a group when you are receiving the Holy Spirit as guidance?

Two things: First, discussions between believers are used by God to edify individual believers. Second, it is a classic misunderstanding of the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the age of grace to expect some sort of Divine revelation each time something is not easily understood. There are some Bible mysteries that we may not understand in this life. The Holy Spirit does move us and guide our decisions but never in contradiction to biblical truth.

c) Since many of the interpretations you receive from the Holy Spirit are not explicit in the Bible (perhaps this is a bad assumption?), do you think you are receiving revelation from a source outside of the Bible?

No. That is the error of many religions but not biblicists. The pentecostals/charasmatics definitely believe this. In my view, several Catholic doctrines fit in this catagory.

I admittedly have not gone back to review past threads in this forum but I would be interested what support you derive from the Bible to support mariology, beads, icons, confession, transubstantiation, paedobaptism, priests, nuns, pastoral celibacy, absolution of sins by priests, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc. I don't believe that there is sound biblical support for these doctrines. In fact if I understand the practices and implications, several are in direct violation of scripture.

Just a reminder. As a biblicist, I will be unimpressed by less than two or three passages of scripture taken in its normal meaning that specifically support any proposed doctrine.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Pauline:
Scott,
There can never be a disagreement between Scripture, Sacred Tradition and papal decree. It's as simple as that. Scripture and Sacred Tradition make up one deposit of Faith.

This is your faith but it has very little to do with fact. Your doctrine says that you must pay for your own sins. The Bible says that we are incapable of any good apart from the indwelling Holy Spirit. The only way we can receive the Holy Spirit is by personally accepting Christ as Saviour. We are wholly incapable of paying for any of our sins. Christ's substitionary sacrifice on the cross was completely sufficient to take away the "sins of the world."

It is scandalous to us Catholics when Protestants seem to lower the dignity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You ask: How is this done? By teaching that Mary sinned, that she was not kept the pure Ark by God Himself. And further, by teaching that after she had borne the Second Person of the Triune God, she had sexual relations with a man and bore other children.

Oops. Got to go. UNP
Pauline.

As Bible believers, it is just as scandalous to us when a religion confers a divine characteristic to someone without biblical proof and without them claiming it for themselves.

Further, on the eighth day after Christ's birth, Mary went to the temple to offer a sacrifice. This is wholly unnecessary for the sinless. I am not aware of any place in scripture where Christ brought a sacrifice except for Himself.

We believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters (of the flesh) borne by Mary because the Bible declares in plain language that He did; Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, John 2:12, I Corintians 9:5, Galatians 1:19. If your contention is that those mentioned were not related to Jesus through Mary, who do you say their father (or Father) was? If you say that they were cousins, provide the proof.

There is no biblical support for the notion that Mary remained a virgin after Christ's birth. In fact, Matthew 1:24-25 strongly implies that she did not by saying that Joseph did not "know" her until Jesus was born. I have no wish to offend anyone but this doctrine has no basis that I am aware of in God's Word and therefore is to be rejected.