Priest of Medjugorje Visons of Mary Defrocked

[Agnus_Dei]

This is Idolatry 101 and you are trying to justify it.

When we say "there is only one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus." The sense of the word "mediator" has a meaning that only Christ alone can perform, and that is to UNITE man to God! No angel, Saint or friend can unite us to God.

But I'm talking about PRAYER, not UNION, per se. Can someone else pray for me? I hope so and the last time I checked, even Protestants are allowed to pray for me (so please do). Can angels pray for me (yes they can and they do). Is it wrong to ask them to do so or thank them for it (certainly not). Can saints in heaven pray for me (the Bible says they do). Is it wrong to ask them (Holy Tradition says it is not). In the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Rich Man prays to “Father Abraham” to intercede with Lazarus for him. It is of no use in his case, but he was not rebuked for speaking to Abraham. Being told “No,” and being rebuked for even having the conversation are two very different things.

In XC
-

 

[BobRyan]

There is no example in all of scripture of Paul praying to his readers asking them to pray for him.

There is no example in all of scripture of even ONE saint on earth praying to the dead.

There is no example in all of scripture of God asking the living to commune with the dead.

EVEN the RCC itself forbids the idea of praying to the living.

And as the Catholic Digest article states - the Jews had the mission of abolishing the custom of prayers to the dead -- the RCC by contrast has to carefully select which of those beings among the dead they will pray to -- in that replacement system they setup for the pagan Romans so they could join the church without missing anything from their old way of life.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Deflection.

The thread is not about the middle ages.

The thread title is about a priest promoting "Medjugorje Visons of Mary Defrocked "

So "yes"thread IS about the myths and superstitions invented in the dark ages - that create the basis for a Medjugorge incident in the first place!

Imagine if you will that INSTEAD of that dark ages superstition - what the RCC really taught was "no praying to the dead because that is simply a Christianizing of the pagan practice of ancestor worship and praying to family gods".

What a very "different" thing we would have in contrast to the mariolotry so often exhibited today.

It surprises me that this point is completely getting past you.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is no example in all of scripture of Paul praying to his readers asking them to pray for him.

There is no example in all of scripture of even ONE saint on earth praying to the dead.

There is no example in all of scripture of God asking the living to commune with the dead.

EVEN the RCC itself forbids the idea of praying to the living.

And as the Catholic Digest article states - the Jews had the mission of abolishing the custom of prayers to the dead -- the RCC by contrast has to carefully select which of those beings among the dead they will pray to -- in that replacement system they setup for the pagan Romans so they could join the church without missing anything from their old way of life.

in Christ,

Bob

You have no idea what you're saying. The bolded part is purposed with my statement. And as my previous post pointed out. Jesus would then be a heretic because he spoke with Moses by your theory. If you want to argue Catholic theology you should use a Catachism or Canon Law rather than a digest. The prior are sactioned by the RCC the later is not. Understand your catholic before arguing with them. I haven't had your luxury of being able to rely on heresay to make my points about Catholics since my family are all Catholic and my father trained in Jesuit university.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

There is no example in all of scripture of Paul praying to his readers asking them to pray for him.

Where in Holy Scripture do we see Paul telling his readers NOT to pray for Him?

There is no example in all of scripture of even ONE saint on earth praying to the dead.

We don't believe Saint's in heaven are "dead" in regard to your definition of the word.....Where in Holy Scripture do we read Saint's NOT allowed to pray in Heaven?

There is no example in all of scripture of God asking the living to commune with the dead.

We don't believe Saint's in heaven are "dead" in regard to your definition of the word....Where in Holy Scripture do we read that when one that is in Christ and a part of His Body (The Church) dies, he/she ceases to be apart of His Body?

-------------------------------------------------------

I believe your hang up is the fact you believe when a Christian dies they are "dead" and will remain "dead" until the Second Coming, but that's a false SDA teaching, and until you can see this and other error's of your own SDA teachings, you'll never be able to move towards what is the fullness of the faith.

My wife's aunt and uncle are SDA's and when my wife's grandmother (her uncle's mother) passed a few years ago, my wife's SDA aunt encouraged my wife's grandfather to go and sit by her grave a few times a week to "keep her company". You see, her SDA aunt believes her mother-in-law soul is simply a sleep in the grave and is not participating in any heavenly worship with the host of heaven. Quite a sad teaching really.

In XC
-

 

[targus]

The thread title is about a priest promoting "Medjugorje Visons of Mary Defrocked "

So "yes"thread IS about the myths and superstitions invented in the dark ages - that create the basis for a Medjugorge incident in the first place!

I believe that the reports of visions of Mary at Medjugorge are more recent than the middle ages.

So this thread is not about the middle ages.

But I can see where as an SDA you would want to make some sort of technical point in your attempt to cut off any talk about Ellen White - who had her own visions of giants on other planets and such.

Imagine if you will that INSTEAD of that dark ages superstition - what the RCC really taught was "no praying to the dead because that is simply a Christianizing of the pagan practice of ancestor worship and praying to family gods".

What a very "different" thing we would have in contrast to the mariolotry so often exhibited today.

It surprises me that this point is completely getting past you.

in Christ,

Bob

No, I am simply expanding the discussion to include your SDA superstitions about half man - half beast amalgamations as taught by Ellen White.

It surprises me that my point is completely getting past you.

Or perhaps it is not and that is why you are unwilling to admit to the similarities between the catholic obsession with Mary and the SDA obsession with Ellen White - writer of SDA scriptures.

 

[Marcia]

I never stated my position on this thread (a thread which I started) regarding asking Mary to pray for us.

It is unbiblical, period.

There is not a single shred of sound biblical basis for it.

When Christ paid the terrible price he paid in order to for us to be forgiven and be able to go to throne of God in Christ's name, we have no need and should have zero desire to pray to a dead woman (yes, I know she's alive in heaven, but she's dead here just like my grandmother, deceased parents, etc).

People who think it's okay to ask Mary for intervention with God have not read the Book of Hebrews, or else they don't get it. We have access to the throne of God through Jesus Christ, so there is no reason to go to Mary or anyone else! It should be obvious. I consider it a blasphemy against Christ to go to Mary.


Heb. 4

14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
16Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Mary,Moses ,Abraham,Angels or fill in the blank are not Omnipresent,Omniscient, or Omnipotent.....that's God's qualities alone. Mary cannot hear a single person making request to her. Only God can see all,know all, and answer all. I can only ask a person for prayer if I have contact in some way. Communication with the departed is forbidden and God is a jealous God that will not tolerate others to take His right full place.

 

[Jedi Knight]

The fact is niether you nor Marcia know for sure who spoke to Saul. Its all speculation.

Scripture said it was Samuel...1 Samuel 28:16 And Samuel said, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing Jehovah is departed from thee, and is become thine adversary?

 

[BobRyan]

I believe that the reports of visions of Mary at Medjugorge are more recent than the middle ages.

So this thread is not about the middle ages.
.

Then you may be interested to discover that Mariology - prayers to Mary, Marian apparitions did not "start with Mejugorge". Those false teachings have a rich dark-ages history that you might want to at least survey for the sake of informed input on the thread.

in Christ,

bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
There is no example in all of scripture of Paul praying to his readers asking them to pray for him.

There is no example in all of scripture of even ONE saint on earth praying to the dead.

There is no example in all of scripture of God asking the living to commune with the dead.

EVEN the RCC itself forbids the idea of praying to the living.

And as the Catholic Digest article states - the Jews had the mission of abolishing the custom of prayers to the dead -- the RCC by contrast has to carefully select which of those beings among the dead they will pray to -- in that replacement system they setup for the pagan Romans so they could join the church without missing anything from their old way of life.

You have no idea what you're saying. The bolded part is purposed with my statement.

Really? -- How so?

And as my previous post pointed out. Jesus would then be a heretic because he spoke with Moses by your theory.

err.. umm... "no".

As I stated the affirmation by Jude of the "Assumption of Moses" in Jude 7 would have allowed for Christ in Matt 17 to be talking to the resurrected and living "Moses" as well as the never-having-died Elijah.

Possibly you missed that "detail".

If you want to argue Catholic theology you should use a Catachism or Canon Law rather than a digest.

Fr Ken Ryan of Catholic Digest provided a good explanation in the "What would you like to know about the church" section. Where a Catholic reader wrote in to ask about the similarities between Buddhists praying to their ancestors and Catholics praying to saints.

You seem to be upset about the article.

Is there something you would like to share??

The prior are sactioned by the RCC the later is not. Understand your catholic before arguing with them. I haven't had your luxury of being able to rely on heresay to make my points about Catholics since my family are all Catholic and my father trained in Jesuit university.

Ahh - so you would like to have me post the quote straight from the article. I am happy to do it - all you have to do is ask.

But until then - Good flame-posting, poor facts.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
There is no example in all of scripture of Paul praying to his readers asking them to pray for him.

Where in Holy Scripture do we see Paul telling his readers NOT to pray for Him?

Not-so-subtle difference there is the point in my post above that Paul never prays TO his readers -- nor does he ask that we pray TO HIM.

The bait-and-switch you are using between "Paul asks people to pray for others" that becomes "we need to PRAY TTHERS to ask them to pray for us" is not as difficult to see as you might have at first imagined.

Originally Posted by BobRyan
There is no example in all of scripture of even ONE saint on earth praying to the dead.

We don't believe Saint's in heaven are "dead" in regard to your definition of the word

My only purpose was to use the SAME term Jesus used in John 11 "Lazarus is DEAD" and the same term that Paul uses in 1Thess 4 "the DEAD in Christ will rise first".

You are free to object to those texts as you please. Insert whatever term you believe would fit your views best.

But the point remains - you STILL have provided not one single example of the "DEAD in Christ" being prayed TO. Nor even of friends or family of Lazarus praying to him once he entered the condition that Christ called "Lazarus IS dead"

.....Where in Holy Scripture do we read Saint's NOT allowed to pray in Heaven?

Interesting switch. I don't argue that.

Originally Posted by BobRyan
There is no example in all of scripture of God asking the living to commune with the dead.

We don't believe Saint's in heaven are "dead" in regard to your definition of the word....

I don't recall giving my definition for something.

Your response creates two gaps.

1. You still provide no example at all of God telling anyone to pray to a person while the person is in the "DEAD in Christ" condition that Paul speaks of in 1Thess 4.

2. If "dead people" are not to be called "the DEAD in Christ" or the "Dead but not in Christ" then in Isaiah 8:19 when God says that we are NOT to "consult the DEAD on behalf of the living" we are left with your "fine - because nobody is dead" self-conflicted proposal.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

Then you may be interested to discover that Mariology - prayers to Mary, Marian apparitions did not "start with Mejugorge". Those false teachings have a rich dark-ages history that you might want to at least survey for the sake of informed input on the thread.

in Christ,

bob

As you previously pointed out the thread is about Medjugorje visions.

Actually it is about the priest of the Medjugorje visions - not the middle ages.

I understand your desperate attempts to try to make a fine point arguement that focuses on the middle ages in your attempt to keep the visions of Ellen White out of the discussion.

As I said, I don't blame you. I wouldn't want anything to do with Ellen White either.

At least catholics are consistent in defending their particular beliefs such as visions of Mary.

Why do SDA's avoid publicly talking about Ellen White while coloring their every thought and belief with her fantasies?

 

[BobRyan]

Catholics of the 20th century publish the connection to paganism for the world to see and understand. (Catholic Digest is the 2nd largest Catholic publication on the planet – though it is not written by the Vatican itself)

Pagan prayer methods.

Catholic Digest 12/1994 pg 129

Fr Ken Ryan:
“The Rosary is, unsurprisingly, Not mentioned in the Bible. Legend and history place its beginning in the 13th century long After the Bible was completed. As a Pagan practice, praying on counting beads goes back centuries before Christ…

Buddhists use prayer wheels and prayer beads for the same purpose… Counting prayer beads is common practice in religious cultures”.

Cath Digest 9/1993 pg 129
Question:
“My husband has been transferred to Japan and we have been here in Hiroshima for about two months. On a site seeing tour the Japanese guide brought me to a Buddhist shrine. There were statues of Buddha everywhere. The guide told me they represented different aspects of life and that the people offer food to the Buddhas and ask for Favors. It made me think of Our Catholic praying to the saints and wonder whether they have anything like the Ten Commandments to guide them.

There were fountains at the gate where pious visitors washed their hands before entering the shrine grounds. Could this be the same as our holy water?”

Fr Ken Ryan answers:
“Very probably the physical washing signifies some kind of spiritual cleansing, AS it does with Us! Some Muslims say prayers on rosarylike beads Just as We do, so there is no copyright enforced on prayerful customs among the great world religions. The Pagan Romans prayed, each family to its own household gods, JUST as we do to our patron saints. In Old Testament times the gentile had local gods for their town or country, and our Christian Saints eventually supplanted Them!

The Hebrews, of Course, had the mission of Wiping Out such heathen worship with the worship of the one true God, and while they have always had great respect for spiritual heroes, they Never set up any of their own race as substitutes for the local pagan gods!!
They had no need to make distinctions between praying TO the saints for their intercession with god and total adoration of God as the source of everything, as we must!

 

[BobRyan]

As you previously pointed out the thread is about Medjugorje visions.

Actually it is about the priest of the Medjugorje visions - not the middle ages.

A more careful reading of the material will show that the Mariolotry invovled at Medjugorje did not "start" at Medjugorge -- it is a long standing dark ages tradition introduced by the RCC regarding not only prayers to the dead - but also Mary "Queen of Heaven" and "sinless like Christ".

Detail details. Turns out they do have meaning.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Question for the class - from the OP

Pope defrocks priest over 'visions' of the Virgin Mary

By Simon Caldwell
Last updated at 12:09 AM on 27th July 2009

The Pope has defrocked the priest at the centre of claims that the Virgin Mary has been appearing in the Bosnian town of Medjugorje.

The Vatican stripped Father Tomislav Vladic of his priest status after an investigation into growing concerns over the alleged apparitions.

Does that mean that Tomislav Vladic no longer has the magic "powers" to "confect God" in the turning of bread into God -- or to forgive sins in the mass?

Are you familiar with the RC teaching on this point?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Really? -- How so?

err.. umm... "no".
As I stated the affirmation by Jude of the "Assumption of Moses" in Jude 7 would have allowed for Christ in Matt 17 to be talking to the resurrected and living "Moses" as well as the never-having-died Elijah.
Possibly you missed that "detail".
Fr Ken Ryan of Catholic Digest provided a good explanation in the "What would you like to know about the church" section. Where a Catholic reader wrote in to ask about the similarities between Buddhists praying to their ancestors and Catholics praying to saints.
You seem to be upset about the article.
Is there something you would like to share??
Ahh - so you would like to have me post the quote straight from the article. I am happy to do it - all you have to do is ask.
But until then - Good flame-posting, poor facts.
in Christ,
Bob

Again. You only hit on part of what I said and not the post and thus you are misled in your own delusion.
1)Catholics believe that when they are praying to a saint they are praying to a living person who is alive in Christ.
2) You state that Jesus spoke with Moses because the Assumption of Moses indicates that Moses is alive. You referrence Jude quote of that book. Which is listed here

9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

The fact that the quote does not say anything about Moses being alive is irrelevant in your statements but taken I will accept the argument. Even though the exant versions of the Assumption of Moses does not have this quote but it seems the logical flow of the book. The greater quotes in Jude are from 1 Enoch. Yet, your argument still is Jesus is not going against Gods command not to speak with the dead because Moses is alive.
3) Catholics use (as noted in point one) the same argument you made as pointed out in point two and bolded as a case for praying to the saints. They also use a passage from 2 Maccabees. So you say Jude adheres to a psuedopigraphia book (the Assumption of Moses). And Catholics say they adhere to an Apocryphal book (2 Maccabees) because just as Jude is reliant on both 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses the author of Hebrews referrences 2 Maccabees Chapter 7. Hebrews 11:35 says specifically

35Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.

Where 2 Maccabees states

The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord... and said to them...Therefore the Creator of the world, Who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in His mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws."

4)Therefore using the same logic and reasoning if you decry the Catholic for their prayers to the saints against their arguments; your arguments for Jesus are also null and void and must make him a heretic against Moses. You must therefore come up with another reason that Jesus, speaking to moses, has not transgressed the law.

 

[Marcia]

There is no evidence that Jude refers to the Assumption of Moses, which could have been written after Jude. The dates for the Assumption of Moses are highly disputed.

Some belief Jude is referring to Zechariah:

The source for this bit in Jude has not survived. Clement of Alexandria and Origen attribute it to a book called The Assumption of Moses, which survives only in fragments. The statement, "The Lord rebuke you," seems to come from Zechariah 3:2. In the Septuagint Zechariah reads, "Epitimaesai Kurios en soi," where Jude reads "Epitimaesai soi Kurios." Many scholars assume that Jude's quote derives from Zechariah.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/Book-Jude.htm


At any rate, any passage in the Bible that refers to or quotes a non-biblical source does not mean it is agreeing with it or agreeing with all of that source!! This is just elementary.

 

[BobRyan]

Again. You only hit on part of what I said and not the post and thus you are misled in your own delusion.
1)Catholics believe that when they are praying to a saint they are praying to a living person who is alive in Christ.

God said that we are not to communicate with the dead in Isaih 8:19 - "do not consult the dead on behalf of the living". This means "no going to the dead and asking for favors".

"Ahh" - you say -- but we get around that restriction by not calling the "Dead in Christ" -- the "Dead in Christ". Certainly they are free to invent whatever game they wish - but so can all the hindus and budhists insist that their ancestors and family gods are every bit as "exercised" as the RCC might wish to imagine for Mary or the Apostles.

Notice that the text of Isaiah 8 does not say "only if you view the dead as not exercising below a certain level should you not seek them out for favors on behalf of the living".

It is a not-so-subtle point - but still worth noting.

2) You state that Jesus spoke with Moses because the Assumption of Moses indicates that Moses is alive. You referrence Jude quote of that book. Which is listed here

Indeed -- it keeps the Bible teaching on not consulting the dead "consistent" to notice that the book "the Assumption of Moses" has been approved by a Bible author.

Thus the Matt 17 story is not a case of a seance or of someone consulting the dead on behalf of the living. But rather - both Elijah and Moses are living.

. Even though the exant versions of the Assumption of Moses does not have this quote but it seems the logical flow of the book. The greater quotes in Jude are from 1 Enoch. Yet, your argument still is Jesus is not going against Gods command not to speak with the dead because Moses is alive.

Indeed - that is my argument for why the Matt 17 case is no violation of the text forbidding the living from going to the dead to seek favors on behalf of the living.

3) Catholics use (as noted in point one) the same argument you made as pointed out in point two and bolded as a case for praying to the saints. They also use a passage from 2 Maccabees. So you say Jude adheres to a psuedopigraphia book (the Assumption of Moses). And Catholics say they adhere to an Apocryphal book (2 Maccabees) because just as Jude is reliant on both 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses the author of Hebrews referrences 2 Maccabees Chapter 7. Hebrews 11:35 says specifically Where 2 Maccabees states

Sadly that argument equivocates between an Apostle and Bible author like Jude affirming the authenticity -- and "the catholics picking a book of their choice" to bestow that same level of apostolic approval.

And obviously "there is the rub". they do not have Jude's same authority to do it.

But even worse for them in the case of the book of 2Maccabees - that book provides NO example of ANYONE praying TO the dead. Not even "really really NICE dead people".

So you are simply pointing to an example where they fail twice instead of just once.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

There is no evidence that Jude refers to the Assumption of Moses, which could have been written after Jude. The dates for the Assumption of Moses are highly disputed.

Some belief Jude is referring to Zechariah:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/Book-Jude.htm


At any rate, any passage in the Bible that refers to or quotes a non-biblical source does not mean it is agreeing with it or agreeing with all of that source!! This is just elementary.

At any rate as many scholars now admit - the quote regarding Michael and Satan discussing the subject of Moses can not be found at all in Zechariah - and has only one possible source UNLESS we are going to edit or delete the writing of Jude so that the text does not refer to Moses. With enough editing and deleting I think Jude's text could be made to look like nothing more than a quote from Zechariah.

It is just that I always avoid that approach to the text of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob