Printable version
 Email to a friend

arrow_left_short all forums
topic list

Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion

Replies: (page   1   2   3   4   5)
Craig from Illinois 06/16/2012 07:25

In regards to Grogan's video link...

It appears that the bulk of Grogan's arguments posted in this thread are affirmed by video #5 " Biblical Examination of Apparition's Messages". I was hoping for more detail of how messages of apparitions are authenticated in video #4. Measuring the fruits of the message and referencing biblical truths to the message seems to be the process. However, video #5 seems to heavily focus on the messages that do not meet these standards.

Andre, in video #5, there are many "messages of apparitions" referenced. What is your opinion about the selection of "messages" that the editor referenced.? Are these "messages" authenticated by the Church? Do you think the selection is a good sampling or unfairly edited?

In general, how are these messages originally received, transcribed and forwarded to the public?

Grogan/Andre, could it be possible that there are false messages from false apparitions that are being transcribed and mixed in with true messages from true apparitions? But how are we to know the true messages from the false? The longer the video #5 goes, the stranger the messages. Video #6 begins with the statement that all the previous evidence of unbiblical messages have been approved by the Church. Is that correct, Andre?

I'm haven't watched #7 and #8 yet. But I did watch Andre's suggested video about Mary in scripture. I have always enjoyed the parallel studies of Old vs. New Testament patterns. I will need to review the video again and probably comment. Thanks for the interesting video!

Craig
Catholica 06/16/2012 14:53
Hi Craig,

I'll watch video #5 when I get an opportunity, soon. One thing that I noticed was that many of the references in the text were to Medjugorje. Medjugorje has never been approved by any bishop, nor has it received general approval. In fact even though it is ongoing today the Vatican has formed a group to investigate it. Usually an investigation only takes place once the apparitions have come to an end. Never is an apparition approved as authentic before the messages end. Therefore, with this in mind, and personally knowing the criteria required for apparitions, it is probable that the Medjugorje apparitions will be ruled as false.

As for the messages that the editor referenced, I'll have to watch the video to see, but keep this in mind: the people writing the video have their own ideas over what "biblical truth" is, as do many denominations. One of the measures that the Church uses to approve an apparition is whether it complies with scripture. So it is very doubtful that any approved apparition would conflict with scripture. However depending on the person interpreting the Bible, the messages might conflict with a person's own interpretation of the Bible. That is why the Church does not use Bible alone, but rather Bible in light of Sacred Tradition, which is the general consensus of the Church fathers.

One of the main problems for those outside the Church in handling messages of approved apparitions is that their theology is based upon the notion that somehow we can individually understand the gospel simply from reading the Bible. Rather the Bible was never meant to be used that way, and never was until the 16th century A.D. The understanding passed on by the apostles to the Church fathers was always referenced to help correctly understand scripture.

The authors of the video have a Protestant-esque view of what scripture is saying, so their opinion of the messages as to whether they are "biblical" is slanted.

In addition, from what I understand the authors are ex-Catholics, which makes it all the more heinous when they portray Catholics entering shrines on their knees as "trying to earn God's favor" or "Mary's favor" which is complete calumny. And also portraying Catholics as "worshiping" Mary is also hogwash. These portrayals tell us one of two things: either they are intentionally lying, which makes the source of them unreliable, or they are completely ignorant, which signals that they are not going to be able to give a balanced view. It is obvious from the page from which the videos are referenced that the authors are in the very least biased against Catholicism. Yet no matter how good their intentions are, it is never acceptable to God to lie to obtain a "good" result, though I would argue that any fruit of their efforts is going to be very ugly indeed for us to view at the final judgment.

Anyway, I will look at video #5, though I'm sure that addressing each misconception will be like trying to drink from a fire hose. If you have anything in particular that I could address, I could go address them one at a time here. I would prefer that actually.

Andre
Catholica 06/16/2012 18:40
As I start to watch the 5th video, the first two messages concern two apparitions which have not been approved. The video claims that there are some personal opinions are some form of approval (in the case of Medjugorje) however that seems to be a lie. In fact bishops have denounced Medjugorje as false, so anytime this video talks about medjugorje, you can know that they are deceiving you. http://www.olrl.org/prophecy/medjugorje.shtml

Next they use a false assertion that bishops have approved the messages to Fr. Gobbi. In fact they have not: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/MMP.htm So right off the bat the video is treading false waters.

If we want to understand the title of Mediatrix that the Catholic Church gives to Mary, read this article: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm. It by no means supplants Jesus role as the One Mediator between God and men. It is nuanced teaching that one has to explore to understand.

Next the video goes on to talk about Our Lady of Betania. While the Church has approved the site as a valid place where Mary appeared, the Church has not approved the messages to the seer, Maria Esperanza. one of these messages is what is quoted in the movie, but the messages have not been approved. Sloppy scholarship.

The next part refers to Our Lady of all Nations. This apparition Has been approved by the local bishop. Mary speaks of herself as Advocate. We've already had a big discussion on heavenly intercession in the thread "the Saints". We are all advocates for each other when we pray for each other with intercession.

Mary's primary role as the Mother of Jesus, the king, makes her a special role of Advocate. This can be seen foreshadowed in scripture where Bathsheba intercedes for the people to Solomon, and then directly at the wedding of Cana where Jesus, not even ready to do his first miracle, concedes to the request of his Mother. We all have a role in interceding for one another. That makes us advocates, that makes Mary the Advocate, a special title. This takes nothing away from Jesus' special role as interceding for man as well. Again, nuanced teaching. Here is a good article on it:

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/5thdogma/voxpopbk3.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2mcoop.htm

I will go on as I continue to dissect it further. Basically, so far the video uses poor scholarship (or lies, heaven forbid) concerning the approval of certain visions, as well as misunderstandings and FUD.
Craig from Illinois 06/16/2012 21:14

You don't have to do any more research for me, Andre. But feel free to continue as you wish. I detected some possible problems with the claims and assertions being made. I figured you would be able to comment quickly. Thank you for doing that!

The video you shared prior was interesting too. You made a comment in regards to the parallel of Bathsheba with Solomon and Mary to Jesus. I had not thought of those relationships as important in relationship to each other. Thanks for sharing that with us.

Now, one thing you said in your second to last post raised my eyebrows. Andre, you stated the following...

"their theology is based upon the notion that somehow we can individually understand the gospel simply from reading the Bible. Rather the Bible was never meant to be used that way, and never was until the 16th century A.D. The understanding passed on by the apostles to the Church fathers was always referenced to help correctly understand scripture."

OK, so are really saying that the common lay person can not understand the Gospel by reading the Bible? This doesn't sound like you, Andre.
Catholica 06/16/2012 22:57
Craig,

Thanks for the response. It's funny, I was thinking just today about what you quoted, after I wrote it. What would I say that the gospel is?

I think the beginning of the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it rightly:

----
I. THE LIFE OF MAN - TO KNOW AND LOVE GOD

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life.
-----

Take that in for a moment: The good news is not simply that Jesus came and died for you and I, and rose again to save us from our sins. That is true, but that isn't the whole gospel. The good news is that God has called man to partake in his own blessed life. We get to share in the life of the creator of the Universe. HOW GREAT IS THAT?

But I think that, especially in America, the gospel has been distorted into sort of a legal transaction. God sent his only Son, who died for us, and now all I have to do is accept Him as "Lord and Savior" and WHAM! That's it. Someday when I die, I get to go to heaven. What a deal.

Only that isn't the whole of it. The good news is that we not only get to be saved but that God draws close to us, he brings us into himself, and we get to take part in the life of God, the creator of life. Here is the entirety of the first three paragraphs:

----

I. THE LIFE OF MAN - TO KNOW AND LOVE GOD

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

2 So that this call should resound throughout the world, Christ sent forth the apostles he had chosen, commissioning them to proclaim the gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."4 Strengthened by this mission, the apostles "went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it."5

3 Those who with God's help have welcomed Christ's call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world. This treasure, received from the apostles, has been faithfully guarded by their successors. All Christ's faithful are called to hand it on from generation to generation, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer.6
----

Yes, perhaps this gospel can be found in the Bible, but in my opinion the general society has been selling the incomplete "legal transaction" gospel for so long that people are going to look at John 3:16 and think that's it. Look, even in our threads here we still see it: that people don't even know what it MEANS to partake in the life of God - the divine nature. There is a rejection of so many gifts that he wants to give us - the gift of knowing that we are alive now AND in heaven, that what we do now AND in heaven is part of the same life. That our prayers in heaven still affect things. There is also the gift of reconciliation of each other - people commissioned by God to appeal to our humanity, and to hear those sweet words: your sins have been forgiven, go in peace. Most of all, there is the gift of the Eucharist, where Jesus stays near to us in a tangible way, knowing that we were sensory beings, that He is really truly present in the Eucharist, the gift which he consecrated for us at the last supper.

These gifts are real and through them God speaks to us and draws near to us intimately. He loves us so much! He is not a lawyer, not a legal transaction. He is a relationship of love, and He just desires to help us love Him in return.

These are real gifts; why do people fight against them? The early Christians received them with great joy, and so have Christians throughout the ages. Awake from your slumber, everyone!! God has so much more for you, if you'd only allow Him to give it to you!

I love you all, I hope you have a good night.

Andre
Craig from Illinois 06/17/2012 22:19

That was an amazing post, Andre. It summarized the discussions of several recent threads and weaved them into a "big picture" of having intimacy with God. I can't thank you enough for entering into a conversation about these things.

I like the Catholic Church when you talk about it. Unfortunately, the term "Catholic" does not have a positive connotation. I think I understand how atheist feel about Christians. My opinion is that most Catholics (practicing or not) do not have the depth of knowledge and spirituality that you have, Andre. If all believers of Jesus were followers of Jesus, and all Catholics were Andres, then we would have a pretty good thing going.

I've grown in my understand and respect for the Catholic Church. I even agree with my heart on some of the points that you have made in recent threads. I still am not understanding your point about Bible's pre-16th Century intent. Perhaps you could elaborate on the history of how the Bible was used in that era. Are you suggesting that the diverse Protestant denominational differences are proof of the Bible's mis-use and errant teachings?
Saint Grogan 06/18/2012 12:08
Andre,

Did you ever think that the reason you feel the Bible is incomplete in the presentation of the Gospel is because many of the things you hold on to in Roman Catholicism as being part of Christianity (like the “gifts”) were added later and that is why they don’t appear in the Bible?

Catholica 06/18/2012 16:59
Steve, I must correct what you said, because I didn't say that "the Bible is incomplete in the presentation of the Gospel" but rather that "general society has been selling the incomplete "legal transaction" gospel". Your question then becomes:

"Did you ever think that the reason you feel that general society has been selling (an) incomplete 'legal transaction' gospel is because many of the things you hold on to in Roman Catholicism as being part of Christianity (like the "gifts") were added later and that is why they don't appear in the Bible?"

And the answer to that is that in fact the "Catholic" Gospel (I would say, the true Gospel, which includes the sacramental life, e.g. God's gifts) IS in the Bible. The sacraments were instituted by Jesus before the Bible was written. The entirety of public (binding) revelation was revealed prior to the death of the last apostle, and was proclaimed by the apostles and handed on to all who called themselves Christians; and that revelation became a sure guide for correct interpretation of the Bible.

Perhaps you are referring to this?

Catechism of the Catholic Church
----
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

28 DV 4; cf. 1 Tim 6:14; Titus 2:13.

DV: Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
----

There is nothing that is added to the Gospel by the Catholic Church: no new public revelation. There is simply a fuller, more explicit understanding of revelation. Perhaps that is what Jesus meant when He promised to send the Holy Spirit to "lead you into all Truth". The gifts of which I speak were given prior to the recording of scripture. The correct interpretation of scripture shows their existence. The writings of the Church fathers confirm it.

Visions and apparitions are considered private revelation and add nothing to public revelation, and can only serve to re-emphasize it at best.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
----
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".
----

Now the other part of the question:

In truth there are only some who adhere to the 'legal transaction' gospel and perhaps characterizing it as more prevalent than it is was too harsh. But what that 'legal transaction' gospel misses out on is the necessity of love, not only from God to us but from us back to God and to our neighbor. And this love necessitates community: not only a personal relationship with Jesus but also a communal relationship of love with our neighbors, especially with other Christians, and Jesus works through His people to bring the people of the world to himself in many ways.

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love. Galatians 5:6.

Matthew 25 - The Judgment
31“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32“All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

34“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

41“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44“Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45“Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Andre
Catholica 06/19/2012 10:32
Hi Craig,

Let me first state that it is a plain fact that you ask the best, most thought-provoking questions. They are always challenging, and always good.

The fact that "Catholic" does not have a positive connotation is sad to me. I can only guess as to why this is so for you, but it will probably have to do with recent scandals. I think this brings up a couple of topics:

1. We believe that people who have been brought into the body of Christ still sin, and often do so terribly. This is from no lack from Jesus at all. Jesus knew that we are fallen human beings. He came to redeem us and to save us but not to take away our free will. It is through free will that people still choose to sin. It is also by free will that people are able to truly love. We are called to be people of love, and we are saved by faith working through love. Galatians 5:6.

So Catholics still sin. The pope still goes to confession, as do all bishops, priests and deacons. We live in a fallen world with a fallen and redeemed nature. We should not be surprised when sin still occurs by members of the Church, even ordained members of the clergy. Rightly these people are held to a higher standard, so it is an even greater scandal when they sin. And truly no one can be sorry enough for the sins that the scandal produced.

It is a mistake to believe that the sins of Christians would ever invalidate the teachings of Christ, so try to see past the darkness of these sins and consider the teachings themselves.

2. The Catholic Church in America went through a time where it provided very poor catechesis. There are some reasons for this that are more of my opinion that I will not get into. I am fortunate enough to have been catechized by hearing the Bible on the DAB and also through faithful Catholic podcasts. If more Catholics took the time to learn their faith from good teachers, I'm certain that there would be many more people who can explain the Catholic faith around.


So finally too your point. Your question was:

"I still am not understanding your point about Bible's pre-16th Century intent. Perhaps you could elaborate on the history of how the Bible was used in that era. Are you suggesting that the diverse Protestant denominational differences are proof of the Bible's mis-use and errant teachings?"

I may have touched on this in my response to Steve (Grogan). I think a simplified history is called for.

So when Jesus came, the Jews had the OT. Yet they also had the religious authority, and they had a form of Sacred Tradition, which is what they called the "Oral Torah". It was forbidden to write this Sacred Tradition down, but they finally did in the 2nd Century AD and now it is called the Mishnah. The Oral Torah was the balance of the Torah written down by Moses and was as binding as Scripture to them.

When Jesus came, He came to the Jews. The Jews would commonly use both Scripture and Tradition. For example, Jesus (and the apostles) sometimes say "It is written" or reference Oral Tradition. For example, in Matthew 2:23 we read "He shall be a Nazarene." That is not written anywhere in the OT. Nor is Moses' seat of authority in Matthew 23:2, nor is the rock following Moses in 1 Cor. 10:4. The vowels of the OT are Oral Tradition.

So oral tradition has always had a place in the distribution of truth. Notice the great commission tells the apostles not to write everything down, but to "go forth and teach". And Paul says "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."

When Jesus ascended, it was nigh on 20 years before any Christian starting writing anything down. Before that the Gospel was proclaimed purely from memory. The apostles had the Gospel, but they didn't have the NT. The gospel preceded the NT. Paul would almost always visit a place first, teach the gospel, and then later (sometimes) write a letter or two back to them. When the NT started being penned, the apostles could us it to teach, but first and most importantly they had the correct understanding of the gospel first and could always correctly interpret these writings.

One can see that the NT was not written like a Catechism and requires interpretation. Paul addressed certain problems. The gospels recorded certain important events of Jesus mixed with theology. The book of Acts recorded some important things the early Church did. The other letters from Peter, Jude, James, John were for everybody. When these letters became available, they were revered in the Church. There were other letters not in the canon which were also revered. The Didache, the Shepherd, the first letter of Clement, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. They were written by the bishops or other writers and were often read in Church alongside the scriptures. The Church regarded them as very useful and faithful writings. There were also writings which masqueraded as gospels as well which became a problem.

It wasn't until maybe a hundred years after Jesus that the Church started working on deciding which books were inspired by God, which were simply pious writings, and which were false writings. Certain letters were always considered inspired, but some were questioned. Some that were questioned were put in the Canon, some that were questioned were left out of the Canon. So you can see, it is still during this time that the knowledge of the real Gospel message was necessary for determining what should be in the canon and what should not. Even so, semi-formal definitions of the Canon were not produced until the 4th century. The Church had to take action to denounce false writings masquerading as records of Jesus.

So if you can imagine the world at this time, and imagine what that would have been like if there had been anyone practicing sola scriptura, we can imagine that would be quite hard. The gospel of John was the last gospel written and the last to be advocated for to be part of the Canon. How does a sola-scriptura person advocate John 3:16 if he can't ever be sure that John 3:16 is inspired? What would a person do if he mistakenly got ahold of a false gospel book and didn't know whether it was true or not?

There had to be some authority to determine which books were inspired and which were not so that we could have a sure guide in the Bible for knowing the word of God. That authority was given to the apostles first, and passed on as all authority ever has been. A visible Church of true teachers, guided by the Holy Spirit.

So since the beginning it has been that the Gospel itself has helped not only interpret scripture but also helped the biblical authors write scripture and helped define which books are scripture. It is not that scripture was used to determine what the gospel was. Rather Scripture helps us know more details of the gospel as it has been a reliable form of retaining it, but the Bible must be read in light of what the original Gospel was to be understood.

Likewise consider the other hurdles that would have been in place for the mythical "sola scriptura adherent" of that time. Bibles, up to the time of the printing press, would often cost more than several years of most people's pay to produce. Because of this high cost, and the fact that Bibles had to be copied by hand, made it impossible for most people to own a Bible. Not only that but in general illiteracy was rampant, simply because it wasn't necessary for most people to be able to read to survive, and too because books were extremely expensive. Bibles were simply not widely available as they are today.

So for the entirety of the time Christianity had been in place (only approaching the 16th century), the teachings of Jesus (the Gospel) had been maintained AND preserved against heresy by members of a Church organization that it seems has been founded by Jesus. But since the Protestant reformation, some persons decided that certain sins of the church meant that they needed to break away and "reform" the early Church from without, using the Bible as the "only" guide.

Yet those original "reformers" disagreed with each other on many important things. And from them slowly the denominations started to form: Lutheran, Calvinists, Anabaptists, and on and on, each with different interpretations of the Bible, each with very different views on what the truth was. The splits continued and continue today, until now denominations don't even bother claiming to have the whole truth, and don't even bother to name themselves, preferring to go by the term "non-denominational" because being part of a denomination has a negative connotation to it.

Sola scriptura's ultimate interpretive authority rests on the individual, the "denomination of one". If a person disagrees with his pastor, he commonly leaves and either forms his own church or finds another one that agrees with him, at least until he finds something else that he doesn't agree with. The end output, I believe, is either a sort of despair that no one can know for sure what the true teachings of Jesus actually were (if they see the big picture with divisions) or a sort of simple belief that whatever each individual believes scripture says is what Jesus taught, sort of an assumed personal infallibility. The best situation to be in in this case is someone who is authentically seeking, with humility, and testing all things. I believe that people who do that will find the truth, and that that truth they seek they will find in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

To answer the question "Are you suggesting that the diverse Protestant denominational differences are proof of the Bible's mis-use and errant teachings?" I would say yes. There are irreconcilable differences between what different denominations believe with regard to salvation. The Bible doesn't contain errant teachings, but people have come up with their own teachings, from the Bible, which explicitly contradict the teachings that others have come up with, also from the Bible. Sola Scriptura was never intended to be used in this way, but rather as a confirmation of the gospel already known.

I hope that makes some sense. I feel that I don't write as clearly as I used to, and since I composed it over the course of two days, hopefully it isn't too scattered.

Andre
Saint Grogan 06/19/2012 14:22
Craig,

I'm leaving. I feel on this forum that "I'm throwing pearls before swine." I hope you will continue in your studies Roman Catholic Church. I want to recommend some literature that I hope you and others will consider reading. Most of the authors were former Roman Catholics who have left the Roman Catholic Church.

Andre,
I pray that you will turn from the heresy you embrace. Salvation is found in Christ alone not "The Church"

"Reasoning from the Scriptures with Roman Catholics" by Ron Rhodes

"The Gospel According to Rome" by James G. McCarthy

"The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" by William Webster

"The Roman Catholic Controversy" &
"The God Who Justifies"by James R. White

"A Woman Rides the Beast" by Dave Hunt

"Vicars of Christ" by Peter De Rosa

Goodbye
(page   1   2   3   4   5)
arrow_up_short start of topic