Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Marian Apparitions


Aloysius

Recommended Posts

Mulls,

As a child, my father was a fundementalist, dispensationalist Protestant. I attended numberous lectures and sermons (by him and others) on Revelation, and Biblical prophecy. In all of these, the son of the woman was believed to be Christ. If this child is Christ, how can the mother not be Mary?

BTW, I am in no way implying that you are fundementalist, or dispensationalist. I just mentioned those as context, and because it still amazes me that I once was both of those.

peace...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

dave,

everybody and their mother has written some sort of commentary about the book of revelation. i hardly believe any of it, because nobody really knows what's going to happen, or when, or what everything stands for.

why should i believe this?

Well because it came down from the early Church Fathers who were taught by the Apostles who were taught by Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then many of His disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard, who can accept it?" ... As a result of this, many of His disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied Him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered Him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God." - John 6:60,66-69.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake Huether

This really isn't that logical... because then you're saying that those who are mentioned in the Bible are prideful. Therefore, Jesus is prideful. Paul is prideful. etc etc etc...

And also, Im' very much sure that Mary wasn't in that prison cell when Paul wrote some of those letters... or wherever he was... so she couldn't have possibly said "Hey Paul, can you make sure you don't mention me in yer letters to the churches!"

Or maybe Im' just confused. :unsure:

:)

No not necessarily...

I said probably... And her humility in not wanting to be mentioned doesn't necessitate anyones "pride" for being mentioned. Jesus NOT once commanded the Apostles to "write" about him.

And as to your statement about Paul... Paul didn't spend the time that the others had with Mary and Jesus. Paul wouldn't be the one to write anything about her.

And the letters that were written werent about EVERYTHING the Church did or believed. They were letters addressing the issues of the times.

If you think about it... Most of the New Testament is "correctional" letters. Therefore, for instance, had the Corinthians been eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Christ worthily, Paul would NOT have had to write about it. Had there been no need for correction, then there would be virtually NO letters!

And in only 60 years you can imagine that NOT even the surface of the FAITH was scratched as far as corrections are concerned. So, therefore, one can conclude that NOT everything that was taught or believed was written about in the Bible!

The only History books are the Gospels! So, outside the Gospels you cannot count the Bible as a Christianity manual (and not even the Gospels - which specifically state that the are NOT about EVERYTHING Christ did)! It isn't a guide book for Christian life! It is a compilation of the letters and histories of the Christian family. But you can NOT say that every aspect of Christianity was covered! That would be saying that in 60 years after the death of Christ EVERY correction to every aspect of Christ's teachings were covered in the Bible. The Bible only contains around 15 or so (off the top of my head) letters from Paul. Do you think that's all he wrote! Do you honestly think that's it for the faith!

Had there not been an "issue" with Mary, then there would NOT have been the need for a letter.

In fact, in 2000 years of Christian history it would appear that the only people with a real "issue" with Mary are Protestants. And I wonder why? Could it be that if they accepted Mary as who she is (that is, who Christians world wide accepted up till the reformation), that they might be concidered "too" Catholic? Oh, my!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...if they accepted Mary as who she is (that is, who Christians world wide accepted up till the reformation)...

How do you *know* that all Christians up until then accepted her as you do now? How do you *know* that the early church accepted her in the same way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake Huether

,Aug 27 2003, 06:49 AM] How do you *know* that all Christians up until then accepted her as you do now? How do you *know* that the early church accepted her in the same way?

It's all documented, Jas. Just read the Early Church fathers! And I'm not talking early, like 1650 or something. I'm talking early, like first couple of centuries!

I'll try to find some links for you. But just search... It's there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, you misunderstand me. I didn't make that clear. When I say early church, I mean the one we hear about in the bible. Like when Peter and Paul were still around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say early church, I mean the one we hear about in the bible. Like when Peter and Paul were still around.

No, he didn't misunderstand. He was referring to the early Church from the time of Peter and Paul onward. Many of the Early Church Fathers learned directly from the original 12 apostles. The idea that they would teach wrongly is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, he didn't misunderstand.  He was referring to the early Church from the time of Peter and Paul onward.  Many of the Early Church Fathers learned directly from the original 12 apostles.  The idea that they would teach wrongly is absurd.

I agree.

What I'm asking is, is there any written record, from the apostles, or leaders in the church in their time (ie, not 300 years later based on traditions passed down from them), that shows the church accepting the same things about prayers etc. involving Mary as today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether there are written records or not, so what? Jesus didn't command his disciples to write a word! What's wrong with traditions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chinese whispers :)

EDIT:

Not that I'm saying anything necessarily changed in handing down of traditions, just that it can a lot more easily than if it's written.

Edited by [jas]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

God prevents Sacred Tradition from corrupting. Of course, over the years the Church comes to understand doctrines more fully and gets new insights into them. However, the Church NEVER understands doctrines to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sacred Tradition

Another catholic term I'm not familiar with. I could take a guess at what it means but could you please explain it in case I've get it wrong? (I don't want to be asking questions based on a misunderstanding of something like that)

Thanks :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...