To Non-Catholics: Miracles and Holy Relics

Just a question to non-Catholics:

Many Holy Relics (the True Cross, the Shroud of Turin, etc.) are protected and venerated by the Catholic Church. Famous miracles and visions (Lourdes, Fatima, Hiroshima, etc.) all affirmed Catholic doctrines and beliefs. How do non-Catholics respond to these “proofs” that the Catholic Church is the True Church of Christ?

My opinion: simply these “miracles” do not have Jesus as there source because their messages are not Biblical. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. (2 Cor 11:14).

About the Holy Relics: i don’t have much info about it, but in case you have the true Cross, then what? It is a piece of wood. It is not this piece of wood that is important but the death of our Lord Jesus on this wood. Jesus the only one who should be worshiped, venerated, adored… etc…

God made an jackmule talk also… what’s your point.

Just kidding.

Many of the holy relics are not in the hands of the Catholic Church or even the Christians and the Bible talks about people that received miracles and gifts from God that were not his followers – at least not yet.

Originally posted by Homer

About the Holy Relics: i don’t have much info about it, but in case you have the true Cross, then what? It is a piece of wood. It is not this piece of wood that is important but the death of our Lord Jesus on this wood. Jesus the only one who should be worshiped, venerated, adored… etc…

Actually, here are some healings through “relics” in the Bible. It is 100% understood that the healing is FROM God but he chooses to do so THROUGH the use of a relic. The Relics are not worshipped, Only God is. But the Bible clearly shows us that God chooses to heal through visible objects at times. We may place the relics in visible places, but only to remind us to the miracles GOD choose to do through the relics. I may be kneeling in front of a relic, but it is to help my heart focus and worship God.

Acts 5:15-16 tells of cures performed through Peter"shadow

Act 19:11-12 tells of cures through face cloths that touched Paul

My opinion: simply these “miracles” do not have Jesus as there source because their messages are not Biblical

What part of their messages are not Biblical? please, be specific.

p.s.
I also forgot, **2 Kings 13:20-21 **there is a man restored to life by God through the bones of Elisha

[quote=Andrew Larkoski]Just a question to non-Catholics:

Many Holy Relics (the True Cross, the Shroud of Turin, etc.) are protected and venerated by the Catholic Church. Famous miracles and visions (Lourdes, Fatima, Hiroshima, etc.) all affirmed Catholic doctrines and beliefs. How do non-Catholics respond to these “proofs” that the Catholic Church is the True Church of Christ?
[/quote]

Hello,

Purported miracles aren’t proof of anything, thus, miracles do not determine the veracity of any church or doctrine. It is a “wicked and perverse generation” (Mt.16:4) which seeks a sign.

First of all, we don’t truly know if these items are what they are claimed to be by the RCC other than their word that it is. Paul told the Corinthians that Satan himself comes as an “angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). When Paul states this, he speaks in the context of false apostles, false ministers, deceitful workers, etc. and than he mentions Satan appearing as a false “apparition.” So I don’t put much stock into a “lady” appearing in Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe, etc. Also, Paul stated that even if “he” or an “angel from heaven” preached a gospel other than the one they have received “let him be accursed” (Gal.1:8). “Mary” doesn’t seem to be presenting the Gospel as the Apostles did, but spends much time bringing attention to “herself.”

The way I see it is as Christ put it:

"Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed."
I don’t need these things to know Jesus. The way I see it, if a church needs all these types of things to prove that her doctrines are true, they probably aren’t.

Peace,
CM

originnally posted by Churchmouse

[left] “Mary” doesn’t seem to be presenting the Gospel as the Apostles did, but spends much time bringing attention to “herself.”

[/left]
Please show me where the blessed Mother’s message contradicts the Gospel or does not point to her Son? Once again, please be specific.

I don’t need these things to know Jesus. The way I see it, if a church needs all these types of things to prove that her doctrines are true, they probably aren’t.

The CC does not need these things to prove her doctrines. Her doctrine stand on their own. And as point of fact, the Catholic church is the only church to be JUST LIKE the early church in Scripture that uses relics to heal, showing God’s greatestness and goodnees. Scripture shows us that people can be healed through relics. When was the last time your church did that? Whose church, then, is more Biblical?

And I am glad you don’t need these things because Jesus did say blessed are those who believe but do not see. But just possibly, maybe you are wrong. Have you ever considered that those who are healed by God through relics are being rewarded for believing without seeing God? For believing that God can and has healed through objects? For giving glory and honor to Him even though they can’t see Him? Look at the Scripture I quoted above in an earlier post. God heals through relics.
God Bless

[quote=MariaG][/left]
Please show me where the blessed Mother’s message contradicts the Gospel or does not point to her Son? Once again, please be specific.
[/quote]

Well, first of all, the Gospel doesn’t say much about Mary and that which is said doesn’t lend to anything “special” other than her being blessed amongst woman due to her being the vessel in which to birth our Savior. Asides from this, there is but a few paragraphs which mention Mary and none give her the distinctions Catholics place on her.

The “lady” is distinctly “Catholic” in her message, asking for prayers (particularly the rosary) to her “immaculate heart.” In Fatima, “she” stated, “You saw hell where the souls of poor sinners go. In order to save them, God wishes to establish devotion to my Immaculate Heart in the world. If people do what ***I *** ask, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. This is completely contradictory to the Gospel, where Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. It is through Him and Him alone where we find salvation, not through Mary’s “immaculate heart.” Looking through the writings of Scripture and through the early centuries of church history, you won’t find anything of this nature taught anywhere.

The CC does not need these things to prove her doctrines. Her doctrine stand on their own. And as point of fact, the Catholic church is the only church to be JUST LIKE the early church in Scripture that uses relics to heal, showing God’s greatestness and goodnees. Scripture shows us that people can be healed through relics. When was the last time your church did that? Whose church, then, is more Biblical?

Does it matter? Other religions claim miracles as evidence of their truth. Ganesh drinks milk. Mormons speak in tongues. Buddhists float in transcendental states. Some have been disproved, others haven’t. Should we attribute those that haven’t to the greatness and goodness of God as well? Or is it possible that there are other powers involved? Or do we heed the warnings of Scripture and realize that false Christs and false prophets will arise and “…show great signs and wonders; so much so that, if it were possible, they would deceive even the elect” (Mt.24:24). Please, when you appeal to Scripture, quote those you refer to. There is only one verse in Scripture that I know of where Catholics base their belief in healing relics, that being 2 Kings 13:20-21 (Elisha’s bones). From this they build an entire theology on relics and healing. I don’t buy it.

And I am glad you don’t need these things because Jesus did say blessed are those who believe but do not see. But just possibly, maybe you are wrong. Have you ever considered that those who are healed by God through relics are being rewarded for believing without seeing God? For believing that God can and has healed through objects? For giving glory and honor to Him even though they can’t see Him? Look at the Scripture I quoted above in an earlier post. God heals through relics.

Well, God can heal through anything if He chose to. However, this doesn’t mean that we are to “venerate” these relics. All that is required for healing—if God chooses to heal the individual—is faith in Him. In Numbers 21, God asked Moses to make a bronze serpent, when Israel was bitten by a snake they were to look at this bronze serpent and live. Well that sounds like a criterion for keeping the bronze serpent and “venerating” it, but later in 2 Kings 18:4 we find Israel burning incense to the bronze serpent and good king Hezekiah does the right thing by destroying it. The story goes on to say how God blessed Hezekiah and his kingdom as a result of this.

Peace,
CM

[quote=Andrew Larkoski]Just a question to non-Catholics:

Many Holy Relics (the True Cross, the Shroud of Turin, etc.) are protected and venerated by the Catholic Church. Famous miracles and visions (Lourdes, Fatima, Hiroshima, etc.) all affirmed Catholic doctrines and beliefs. How do non-Catholics respond to these “proofs” that the Catholic Church is the True Church of Christ?
[/quote]

Scoffing, mostly.

Wrong. It doesn’t say that. It simply says:

so as to carry out the sick in the streets, and to place them on cots and mattresses, that at the coming of Peter, if even his shadow might overshadow some of them. And also the multitude came together from the cities around Jerusalem, bringing sick ones and those being tormented by unclean spirits, who were all healed.

At no time does it state that they were healed as a result of Peter’s shadow, but only that these people hoped that if his shadow passed over them, they would be healed. The context doesn’t say that Peter’s shadow healed them, but only expresses their wishes.

Peace,
CM

[quote=Churchmouse]Hello,

Purported miracles aren’t proof of anything, thus, miracles do not determine the veracity of any church or doctrine. It is a “wicked and perverse generation” (Mt.16:4) which seeks a sign.
[/quote]

Um, excuse me, but are you calling my Catholic faith wicked and perverse???

Furthermore, no signs have been sought, they were all given without asking. Including but not limited to the Real Presence at Mass every time it is said.

It is the Real Presence that many non-Catholics argue for a sign for. (Mt. 16:4)

“Mary” doesn’t seem to be presenting the Gospel as the Apostles did, but spends much time bringing attention to “herself.”

Mary is her name, you don’t have to put it in quotations. And rather than spend time posting on topics you obviously know very little about, you should spend time on the messages Mary does want us to have. You will see that they are all centered on her Son, NOT HER.

The way I see it is as Christ put it:

Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed.”

I don’t need these things to know Jesus. The way I see it, if a church needs all these types of things to prove that her doctrines are true, they probably aren’t.

Peace,
CM

Again, if you’re going to stick to this, then stop questioning things YOU have not seen.

AGAIN, The Catholic church does not NEED all of these types of things to prove anything. They were given without the asking. Now go study up before you make any more ridiculous, rude and offensive statements such as these.

[quote=Little Mary]Um, excuse me, but are you calling my Catholic faith wicked and perverse???
[/quote]

Not at all and I don’t know how you got this from the post. The verse says that a wicked and perverse “generation” seeks a sign. It applies to those who wear the shoes, Protestant or Catholic.

Furthermore, no signs have been sought, they were all given without asking. Including but not limited to the Real Presence at Mass every time it is said.

Well, that wouldn’t fall under the auspices of a “miracle” considering that the bread, very evidently, hasn’t changed. We can only take Rome’s word for it.

It is the Real Presence that many non-Catholics argue for a sign for. (Mt. 16:4)

Not this “non-Catholic” :thumbsup:

Mary is her name, you don’t have to put it in quotations. And rather than spend time posting on topics you obviously know very little about, you should spend time on the messages Mary does want us to have. You will see that they are all centered on her Son, NOT HER.

I put it in quotations because I don’t believe that any apparition that brings attention to “herself” would be “Mary.” Mary was a humble servant of God who uttered, “Whatever He says to you, do.” The apparitional “Mary” doesn’t exalt Christ as much as she exalts herself. There is very little more to say about Mary from a biblical standpoint and even less in Biblical substance. BTW, I know more about Mary than you would assume and that’s not saying much because, as I stated, Scripture doesn’t say much about her.

Again, if you’re going to stick to this, then stop questioning things YOU have not seen.

And you are misconstruing the verse. The verse appeals to Christ and not to Mary. Do yourself a favor and do not attempt to bring a meaning to it not found in the text. IOW, Blessed are those who haven’t seen the wounds on"Jesus’" hands and side and still believe." Don’t employ it otherwise.

AGAIN, The Catholic church does not NEED all of these types of things to prove anything. They were given without the asking. Now go study up before you make any more ridiculous, rude and offensive statements such as these.

If you take them as rude and offensive, I apologize that you perceive it that way, but does that mean that I will acknowledge that the apparitions are Mary? No. Does that mean that I will stop quoting the verses which I feel are relevant to the thread? No. I won’t stop speaking in regards to this even if it is perceived as “offensive.” This forum is literally *smothered * with remarks which are offensive to non-Catholics but we learn to live within the framework of it all. I suggest you do the same.

Peace,
CM

Dear Churchmouse,

Devotion. Until you can understand the difference between devotion and worship, there is no point in trying to discuss the words of Our Lady.

But I truly need to thank you. I have never read the story of Fatima. I knew of it, but never read about it. Because of you I read it and have the opportunity to start learning more through your words. Not the intent you had, but I thank you anyway.

As to the issue of relics. You forgot to look up, failed to read or choose to ignore:

**Acts 19:11-12 **Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them.

God chooses to work relics, the immaculate heart of Mary, and even me. He does not have to use anything. But God does choose to. A whole doctrine has NOT been built around one verse. There are actually 3, (2 if you wish to discount the accounting of paul’s shadow, although you are doing just that, discounting it). We also base it off of the practices of the early church. Sacred Tradition, Another thread.

Just think about Acts 19:11-12. Clearly God chose to heal many people using relics and it IS recorded in the Bible. Does God change? Does He heal through relics, but then suddenly stop doing that? I am not asking you to believe that the CC has relics that can be verified to your satisfaction. I am just asking you if you think God would have healings recorded in His written word in both the OT and the NT using relics and decide that it is somehow idolotry now? At least concede that there have and possibly can be healings through relics, things that touched people who lead very Holy lives. Otherwise, you reject the very words of God.

God Bless

How do non-Catholics respond to these “proofs” that the Catholic Church is the True Church of Christ?

To MariaG. There are also miracles that happen in Protestant churches…so what? Admittedly not as well documented, but there nonetheless. Does that mean the fifty billion Protestant churches are the “true church?” Nah…

I’m not saying the Catholic church isn’t the true church, i don’t know… but I don’t think miracles confirm that. The only thing that confirms that is your nifty apostolic succession or something.

posted by Curious
To MariaG. There are also miracles that happen in Protestant churches…so what? Admittedly not as well documented, but there nonetheless. Does that mean the fifty billion Protestant churches are the “true church?” Nah…

Dear Curious,
I have been so mad at the people in the thread that say with a blanket statement Protestants are not Christians. Not very good Catholic Christians if you ask me! Part of the package, joy and reassurance of being in the Catholic Church is appostolic succession and AUTHORITY. And the Catholic church has said that Protestants are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Part of the body of Christ. Their churches are Not the true church (for there is only one church), but part of the body:yup: !

In the Catechism (and Bible)it talks about the completementary functions of the body. The neccessary functions of the whole body. So I started to think, what do Protestants add to the body of Christ? And it quickly became obvious to me. The pope talks of the some Catholics who (now he used words like sacremental and something else so this is a complete paraphrase!) need to have a personal relationship with Christ. They have not let Christ touch their heart. In my opinion, it is easier to reach the heart of a person in a protestant church. Don’t get me wrong, the richness and fullness of the Catholic church is like nothing else. But if you don’t have the basic understanding of Christ, the richness and fullness is lost on the person.

YES, YES, YES, even Christians like Homer and Churchmouse who have a complete misunderstanding of the teachings of the CC, who swallow whole the lies of Satan perpetuated by people like Jack Chick and Bob Jones, who do not think I am a Christian are part of the body of Christ. For although they are blinded to the full truth, they clearly love the Lord. Why else would they come here repeatedly, to a Catholic site, to sometimes be attatcked personally, and not just doctrinally? They just want to share the love of the Lord, not understanding that Catholic Christians who follow the real teachings of the CC have it in abundance.

I’ll pray for you Curious. I think it is harder to be where you are at than where I am or Homer and Churchmouse are. And as someone who had to walk away from an Evangelical Church back into the CC I know how hard that walk can be.

And back to the real thread (I kind of went off topic a bit :o ), I am amazed and humbled how God repeatedly shows us how He wants to use people and even relics to show His power in every part of the body of Christ. All glory and Honor (as in worship) to you Lord!:bowdown:

God Bless
Maria

[quote=Churchmouse]Not at all and I don’t know how you got this from the post. The verse says that a wicked and perverse “generation” seeks a sign. It applies to those who wear the shoes, Protestant or Catholic.
[/quote]

I’m glad you cleared that up.

Well, that wouldn’t fall under the auspices of a “miracle” considering that the bread, very evidently, hasn’t changed. We can only take Rome’s word for it.

No, we take Jesus’ very own word for it.

I put it in quotations because I don’t believe that any apparition that brings attention to “herself” would be “Mary.” Mary was a humble servant of God who uttered, “Whatever He says to you, do.” The apparitional “Mary” doesn’t exalt Christ as much as she exalts herself. There is very little more to say about Mary from a biblical standpoint and even less in Biblical substance. BTW, I know more about Mary than you would assume and that’s not saying much because, as I stated, Scripture doesn’t say much about her.

I said it before and I’ll say it again, Mary’s intention is to bring attention to her Son, to bring souls to her Son and she has requested over again for people to pray, pray, pray. Not for her, but for the world. You say you know more about Mary than I might assume, but your post did not reflect that. You also did not say exactly how much you know about Mary, but if you know anything at all about her, than you cannot deny that her intentions are for us and her Son. Not for her.

As far as your basing your knowledge of Mary on scripture (which was compiled by the Catholic church and ratified by a Pope) I’ll assume you are basing your opinions from a Sola Scriptura standpoint which is another thread.

And you are misconstruing the verse. The verse appeals to Christ and not to Mary. Do yourself a favor and do not attempt to bring a meaning to it not found in the text. IOW, Blessed are those who haven’t seen the wounds on"Jesus’" hands and side and still believe." Don’t employ it otherwise.

:smiley: **YOU YOURSELF USED IT OUT OF CONTEXT. Go back and read your post. **

If you take them as rude and offensive, I apologize that you perceive it that way, but does that mean that I will acknowledge that the apparitions are Mary? No. Does that mean that I will stop quoting the verses which I feel are relevant to the thread? No. I won’t stop speaking in regards to this even if it is perceived as “offensive.” This forum is literally *smothered *with remarks which are offensive to non-Catholics but we learn to live within the framework of it all. I suggest you do the same.

Nobody is trying to persuade you to acknowledge that any of the apparitions are Mary. Catholics are not even required to believe that.

I didn’t ask you to stop quoting verses you think are relevant. Go for it and have fun doing it. And certainly don’t accuse me of using a verse out of context when you did that very thing. I just took your original post out another step. BTW, the Catholic faith is all about keeping things within context.

Yes, I perceived that post as offensive. One can post his/her opinion without being offensive. Your post, at least for me, is not a good example of that.

Remarks offensive to non-Catholics, yes sadly, I know what you are talking about but I can tell you that I’ve been to plenty of websites, forums or otherwise that are extremely offensive to Catholics as well. And, no , that doesn’t make it OK. We should all try not to be offensive. I think I live very well within the framework although some people make it harder to do so than others. My focus on this forum is to defend my Catholic faith, not to “cut-down”, or bash or criticize or whatever -you -want -to -call -it the faith of others.

I respect the fact that there are beliefs out there that differ from mine. Do you? If the answer is yes, then offensive posts would not be an issue.

[quote=MariaG]Dear Churchmouse,

Devotion. Until you can understand the difference between devotion and worship, there is no point in trying to discuss the words of Our Lady.
[/quote]

I thoroughly understand the difference between the two, but the thing is—I don’t *buy into * the differences between devotion to God and devotion to Mary. There is very little which seems to separate the two. I know that the Church tries to keep these distinctions real, but they do very little to enforce them. Although Catholics say differently, this is a case where actions speak louder than words and the type of “devotion” given Mary seems to overwhelm the type given to God. As a former Catholic, I never gave Mary the type of devotion others did and didn’t see the importance of it. Fact is, I never “devoted” myself to Mary at all. I paid no mind to the alleged “Mary” sightings other than to the type of fruits it bore—the faithful seem to be more involved with “Mary” than that which she claimed to represent. “Mary” feeds further into this by asking for things to be done in her honor (commitment, prayers, churches, etc.). At no time did these apparitions correct the faithful and direct their devotions to Christ. Of course there were indirect references to Christ, but nothing coming close to the attention “she” drew to “herself.” It seems that as time progresses, so does the frequency of Marian encounters, and as they do, so does the “devotion” to Mary. You see, many times I am asked to understand the difference between “devotion” and “worship” when it comes to Mary, but then I realize that there really isn’t much of a difference no matter how much Catholics tell me differently.

But I truly need to thank you. I have never read the story of Fatima. I knew of it, but never read about it. Because of you I read it and have the opportunity to start learning more through your words. Not the intent you had, but I thank you anyway.

You didn’t read it? And still you chose to defend it?

As to the issue of relics. You forgot to look up, failed to read or choose to ignore:

**Acts 19:11-12 **Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them.

I never said that God couldn’t use objects to convey His glory, but only that it’s wrong when folks “venerate” the object and use it as evidence of their “truth.” If miracles are used to prove one’s “truth” than we should seriously look at the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Mormon, and others who claim miracles as well. Also, Catholics tend not to look at the entire picture and settle for “just enough” to bolster their arguments. For instance, in instances such as these (Acts 19:11-12; Matthew 9:20; 14:36), these men were alive and it wasn’t so much the artifact as it was their faith in God which brought healing. When the woman touched the hem of Christ, it wasn’t the fabric, but the faith which produced the thought. She thought, “If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole,” but Christ replied, “*Daughter, be of good comfort; **thy faith *** hath made thee whole” (Mt.9:21-22). Again, it wasn’t the garment, but the faith in Him that healed her. In all these instances, there is no record of these folks taking the artifacts, venerating them, …

continued…

…and claiming that more miracles were wrought by them. In the case of 2 Kings 13:21, a dead man was cast into the cave of Elisha, he incidentally touched his bones and came back to life, but Elisha’s bones weren’t dragged away, venerated, and used to heal others. Neither did they bring more dead folks to touch his bones. If your response is, “Well, how do you know?” then read the account of the brass serpent in Numbers 21. God commanded Moses to make it, to tell those who are bitten to look at it, and they would be healed. In your view, this could be an object of veneration. After all, it fits the criteria as an object used by God to heal. But, as time passes, we find that the children of Israel were burning incense to this brass serpent (read the account in 2 Kings 18). Regardless if they were worshiping or “venerating” this relic, King Hezekiah destroyed the high places and the “relic” and God blessed him and his kingdom.

God chooses to work relics, the immaculate heart of Mary, and even me. He does not have to use anything. But God does choose to. A whole doctrine has NOT been built around one verse. There are actually 3, (2 if you wish to discount the accounting of paul’s shadow, although you are doing just that, discounting it). We also base it off of the practices of the early church. Sacred Tradition, Another thread.

You mean “Peter’s” shadow in Acts 5:15-16 and I’m not discounting it. One only needs to read the passage to see that this reflected the thoughts of some people, but says nothing about anyone being healed through Peter’s shadow. You’re simply reading in something which isn’t there. Also, once again, I do not discount that God can work through objects if He wants to, but when it comes to the collection and veneration of these objects and the thought that miracles substantiate the “truth” for a religious group is where I have a problem. Also, you cannot rightfully say that the early church practiced the veneration of relics when it wasn’t a common thought in the church and isn’t present in the earliest church.

Just think about Acts 19:11-12. Clearly God chose to heal many people using relics and it IS recorded in the Bible. Does God change? Does He heal through relics, but then suddenly stop doing that? I am not asking you to believe that the CC has relics that can be verified to your satisfaction. I am just asking you if you think God would have healings recorded in His written word in both the OT and the NT using relics and decide that it is somehow idolotry now?

Again, God can use objects if He wants to, but the Biblical accounts do not jibe with the Catholic view. Again, read the account in Numbers 21 and compare them to the account in 2 Kings 18. Whether the object was being worshiped or “venerated,” King Hezekiah did “*that *which was right ** in the site of the Lord” (2 Kings 18:3) and destroyed it (vs.4). If the Jews had done the same thing and took Elisha’s bones to “venerate” what do you think King Hezekiah would of done? The point is that God was displeased with these types of actions, yet the Catholic does pretty much the same thing.

continued…

At least concede that there have and possibly can be healings through relics, things that touched people who lead very Holy lives. Otherwise, you reject the very words of God.

There isn’t anything to concede. I’ve already stated that God can use objects, like handkerchiefs, if He’d like. But I cannot in good conscience say that the Catholic has Biblical support for the collection and veneration of these objects. If anything, the evidence points otherwise. As per the point of this thread, Catholics cannot rightly believe that these artifacts and miracles are evidence of the “truth” of the Catholic faith, just as much as the Protestant, the Jew, the Buddhist, the Muslim, etc. can claim miracles and artifacts as evidence of theirs.

Peace,
CM

[quote=Little Mary]No, we take Jesus’ very own word for it.
[/quote]

Well, as to how you take Jesus’ words are debatable as evidenced by the many threads on this forum and other forums around the WWW.

I said it before and I’ll say it again, Mary’s intention is to bring attention to her Son, to bring souls to her Son and she has requested over again for people to pray, pray, pray. Not for her, but for the world. You say you know more about Mary than I might assume, but your post did not reflect that. You also did not say exactly how much you know about Mary, but if you know anything at all about her, than you cannot deny that her intentions are for us and her Son. Not for her.

I don’t think I need to go into details as to how much I know about Mary any more than I would expect you to. Again, “Mary” doesn’t bring as much attention on Christ as she does on “herself.” Whether she asks the faithful to pray isn’t the problem, but when “she” asks for the rosary (where “she” is predominant) or when “she” asks for meditation on “her” immaculate heart, or when she asks for monuments in “her” name. Again, Mary was a humble servant of God, one of which the Bible and the earliest church says very little about, and yet, a elaborate theology has been created about her.

As far as your basing your knowledge of Mary on scripture (which was compiled by the Catholic church and ratified by a Pope) I’ll assume you are basing your opinions from a Sola Scriptura standpoint which is another thread.

Please, don’t confuse the topic by adding more into the mix. I don’t have to appeal to Sola Scriptura considering the earliest church writings don’t say much about her either and leaves much to speculation. If Mary were such a intregal part of the Church, one would expect some allusion, even small, stating her importance in the life of the Church, but nothing is there other then the “implications” that are so common amongst those who find nothing.

:smiley: **YOU YOURSELF USED IT OUT OF CONTEXT. Go back and read your post. **

The verse points to Christ and Christ alone. Thomas stated he wouldn’t believe unless he could touch Jesus’ wounds. Later, Christ allows Thomas to do so and he believed. Christ follows with:

"Thomas, because you have seen Me you have believed. Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed (Jn.20:29)

I didn’t take anything out of context as you can see, but you did when you said:

Again, if you’re going to stick to this, then stop questioning things YOU have not seen.

The verse is about Christ, not about everything we haven’t seen.

Nobody is trying to persuade you to acknowledge that any of the apparitions are Mary. Catholics are not even required to believe that.

I know. I’m an ex-Catholic. I didn’t believe these apparitions when I was Catholic either.

continued…

I didn’t ask you to stop quoting verses you think are relevant. Go for it and have fun doing it. And certainly don’t accuse me of using a verse out of context when you did that very thing. I just took your original post out another step. BTW, the Catholic faith is all about keeping things within context.

Again, I used it in context. You made it general. I would appreciate if you would acknowledge that.

Yes, I perceived that post as offensive. One can post his/her opinion without being offensive. Your post, at least for me, is not a good example of that.

It wasn’t meant to be offensive, but I can understand if it was. I’m sorry that you found it that way, but again, not everything translates well over these threads. I find many things on this forum that is offensive to me as a Protestant, but there is no way of gauging the intent unless it is blatant. I may say something if that is the case, but I learn to live with it.

Remarks offensive to non-Catholics, yes sadly, I know what you are talking about but I can tell you that I’ve been to plenty of websites, forums or otherwise that are extremely offensive to Catholics as well. And, no , that doesn’t make it OK. We should all try not to be offensive. I think I live very well within the framework although some people make it harder to do so than others. My focus on this forum is to defend my Catholic faith, not to “cut-down”, or bash or criticize or whatever -you -want -to -call -it the faith of others.

Yes, human nature does tend to creep in quite a bit :o

I respect the fact that there are beliefs out there that differ from mine. Do you? If the answer is yes, then offensive posts would not be an issue.

Yes, I do respect those who don’t believe like I do and it’s never personal unless they spread error to others. At the same time my respect doesn’t mean that I must ignore error. The early church had to deal with the likes of Cerinthus and other Gnostics. They had to deal with Judaizers. They didn’t ignore these errors and Christians shouldn’t either.

Peace,
CM

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.