Priest of Medjugorje Visons of Mary Defrocked

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Marcia, Jul 31, 2009.

  1. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    This was sent to me in an email. The source is apparently the Cleveland Latin Mass News. Sorry, I don't have a link.


     
  2. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a typo in "visions." I left out the "i." Wish we could edit thread titles!
     
  3. Palatka51

    Palatka51
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well he could always sell pickles. :)
     
  4. Zenas

    Zenas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Is this for our learning and enrichment, or is it the introduction to a debate? If the latter, what are the issues?
     
  5. Alive in Christ

    Alive in Christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems to be open ended. I would guess if anyone wants to discuss...then discuss. :thumbs:

    There appear to be several.
     
  6. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's factual information offered up for comment, discussion, and/or debate.

    I know quite a few people who have gone to Medjugorje for some kind of spiritual experience. And none of them were Roman Catholic! Some were New Agers (the ones with Catholic backgrounds) and a few were just seeker types looking for something mystical.

    People really believe they will get a blessing or healing at this place, a place which is either a total hoax or possibly was visited by a demonic spirit appearing as Mary. I believe that any purported appearance of Mary is either a hoax, delusional, or demonic.

    I'm glad about this report but I doubt that fans of Mary will pay much attention to it.
     
  7. Zenas

    Zenas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Marcia, you're the expert on the occult and New Age experiences here on this board. Sorry to say, I never heard of Medjugorje and in light of your article, I would say it is a hoax. However, I cannot rule out the possibility of dead people appearing to the living. See e.g., Matthew 27:53; Luke 9:28-35. These people were agents of God. So why do you seem to foreclose the possibility of Mary (an agent of God) appearing to us while you leave open the possibility of demonic apparitions?

    I am not a very spiritual person but I did have one experience along this line many years ago that leaves me wondering even today.
     
  8. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, really? I'm surprised you haven't heard of it. It's in the former Yugoslavia territory, btw.

    Neither of these incidents were normative; I consider the 2nd one to be like a vision or special revelation. Clearly, that was unusual and involved Jesus Christ and only 3 of the disciples. It was not so much an appearance of dead people as a revelation from God for a specific purpose (similar to the appearance of Samuel to Saul in the OT).

    As for the first incident, that is a very unclear and disputed passage, about which we know very little. This is also does not say the dead came back to interact but simply "appeared to many." I find it a very unclear passage and God apparently gives us no more info than that for a reason.

    A principle of good hermeneutics is to never use an unclear or disputed passage to support a doctrine. Since there is nowhere in the Bible where seeing dead people is normative, and since God denounces and forbids contact with the dead, it is reasonable imo to take the position that dead people do not come back and appear to us or talk to us.

    I do not consider Mary to be "an agent of God."

    I think some people "see" a dead loved one out of grief. It is certainly common to dream of dead loved ones (I do all the time) but I do not consider these to be actually my dead relatives but just dreams.

    I know of incidents where it is definitely demonic.
     
  9. Zenas

    Zenas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Originally posted by Marcia:
    All right, except I would disagree that this is comparable to the apparition of Samuel, who was not too happy that he had been disturbed.
    Yes it is a difficult passage and God gave us very little additional information for a reason. But He gave us some information and that was also for a reason. Therefore we should not ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. Seeing dead people walking around is not "normative"; otherwise Matthew wouldn't have bothered to mention it. It was very rare and is not absolute proof that it still happens today. But in my mind it is sufficient to demonstrate that dead people can appear to living people and probably do.
    The mother of our Lord is certainly not an agent of the devil.
    This was not a loved one and if it was a dream, it was shared by both me and my wife. The next day I related to her what I had perceived. She said she had perceived the exact same thing at the same time. I don't attach any theological significance to it but it is difficult to explain through empirical possibilities.
     
  10. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not quite comparable, I agree. But I believe the appearance of Samuel was a non-normative event engineered by God (not the medium) in order to rebuke Saul and prophesy that he and his sons would die in battle.

    I never said we should ignore it. I just said we can't use such a brief passage for which no clarification is given as evidence we can see dead people. I disagree we can draw that conclusion from this one statement. Btw, it does not say the people walked around; it just says they "appeared."

    That does not mean Mary is an agent of God. There is no biblical support for this. In fact, the only "agents" we could possibly point to would be angels (messengers).



    I don't get theology from anecdotes.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I agree with you - but I think your position is "at risk".

    Often in my debates with RCC members on this topic they point to Matt 17 where Christ speaks to Moses and Elijah and they point to the story in 1 Samuel 28 where the witch of Endore (a servant of satan) claims the power to raise up the deceased servant of God (Samuel) and speak with him.

    They argue that their prayers to the dead and their visits by Marian apparations are fully compatible with those Bible concepts.

    I respond that the Bible says the dead know not anything, that they have no more memory or even "thought" and that in Matt 22 Christ Himself says that "God is not the God of the dead" (ie they have no concept of worship to God even while dead).

    But I doubt you could use that argument to support your view of Mary in your text above -- so what argument do you use.

    Basically I agree with your conclusion -- I just have no idea how you got there.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Matt 27:53 is a case of a dead person having been bodily resurrected as was Christ Himself. So that is not a case of the dead doing anything - rather it is the living once they are raised up.

    Agreed. Elijah was taking bodily to heaven without dying.

    Moses (according to the book the "Assumption of Moses" that is quoted in the book of Jude) was bodily assumed into heaven.

    so both are examples of the LIVING speaking with the LIVING.

    There is no Bible support at all for Mary having be raised from the dead.

    Hence - no Marian apparitions are valid.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. Zenas

    Zenas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    Nor is there any record that she ever died. If we agree to go strictly by the Bible, we have to admit that we just can't know. The last reference to Mary in the Bible is in Acts 1 when she was probably about 45 years old. After that we know she lived with John until she died. We don't know for sure where they lived, when or how she died or whether she died. The Bible is similarly silent at to how all the apostles but James met their deaths. Tradition, however, points strongly toward the dormition and assumption of Mary. And why would it be strange for our Lord to take His mother to Heaven early? We know it happened to Elijah and Enoch, and as you say, most probably to Moses.
     
  14. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes there is.
    Hbr 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:


    Yes we can.

    1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


    There is zero in scripture to even hint that Mary didn't die a natural death.
     
  15. Zenas

    Zenas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    We have two express exceptions to this rule (Genesis 5:24 and 2 Kings 2:11). Could there not be others that are not recorded in the Bible? If not, why not? Also we have Revelation 12:1-2. I'm not saying Mary didn't die because I wasn't there, but tradition makes a pretty good case for her assumption. There is absolutely nothing in tradition or archeology that suggests a burial place for Mary. If such were ever even hinted at, it would instantly become the most visited site in all the world.
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Does it not appear a bit "odd" that the huge interest the RCC has in Mary would not have been reflected at all by NT authors such that she could be translated directly to heaven as you see with Enoch and Elijah - in your examples above -- and yet NO NT author would even consider it worthy of "mention"????

    The bible writers "mention" the angels visits to her - they mention the "comments of Christ" to her at His death and they even "mention" her coming to Christ with all his brothers insisting that He needed to rest a while - but yet they make no mention at all that she was translated?? Not possible!

    That requires too much "faith" in what they were willing to ignore.

    The RCC itself - although willing to literally idolize Mary and engage in outright Mary-olotry is not willing to go to such an extreme as to deny that Mary ever died. In their doctrines on the "assumption of Mary" they teach that Mary had god-like qualities (Co-redemptrix and sinless like Christ etc) such that the same Acts 2 statement about God not allowing the sinless Christ to "undergo decay" should also be applied to the "sinless Mary" and so they claim she was raised from the dead and then bodily assumed into heaven as was Christ (and Moses).


    But they base their entire argument on the Bible-denying point "Mary sinless like Christ" - I can not go to that extreme either.


    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #16 BobRyan, Aug 2, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2009
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    There are many many people in both OT and NT for which their death is not recorded. We have no excuse at all for "imagining" that nobody died unless the Bible records the individual specifically dying. As has been pointed out - a number of texts (like Romans 5) state that "death spread to ALL" because of Adam's sin.

    There is just no way around that Bible doctrine. ALL die and the exceptions are noted in scripture. Rather than "all do not die" and the exceptions are noted in scripture.

    I think we all can agree there.

    "until she died".

    In fact the RCC has a grand tradition about the "Tomb of Mary".


    The RCC fiction about Mary being assumed into heaven after being bodily resurrected - states that Mary died while peter and all the disciples were still alive. So plenty of time for an actual "Bible writer" to "notice".

    Also it states that the disciples come "flying to Mary" as she is about to die.

    Another once-in-all-of-time "detail" for a Bible writer to "notice".

    Then of course the RCC point is that because Mary is the ONLY OTHER HUMAN on the planet that was "sinless like Christ" -- then she was the ONLY OTHER ONE to have the Acts 2 statement applied to her JUST as God the Son - Jesus Christ had it applied to Him.

    Another once-in-all-of-time "detail" for a Bible writer to "notice".

    It does not escape our notice that once the RCC invents that fiction they continue to "Notice" their writers continue to notice the details of that story century after century. Yet we are told to "believe" that the actual Bible writers "failed to notice" and instead merely record the fact that Mary was given to John to care for... as the last significant "detail" any Bible writer records about Mary.

    How "instructive".

    The argument is not "Mary was not worthy of Christ's attention" nor is the argument "Mary was less worthy than Moses to be raised and then assumed into heaven".

    The argument is that Mary was AT LEAST as "noticable" as Elijah and Enoch and should have at LEAST made "honorable mention" by some Bible writer IF it was TRUE that she was "LIKE Christ sinless" and "the ONLY human like Christ to be raised after three days BECAUSE of her sinless state being LIKE Christ". The complete absence of all of that by the Bible writers - is then too significant to simply ignore.

    Actually the death and resurrection followed by assumption sequence only happened to Moses and to Christ - as well as possibly happening to those saints raised in Matt 27.

    Elijah and Enoch are entirely different. They never died at all. They were translated while living - directly to heaven.

    The Bible places them "above" even what the RCC claims for Mary in that case. But the Bible never argues that they were given that honor "because they were sinless like Christ". Rather the actual Bible says "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, I think I pretty much explained it in my response to Zenas on the first page of this thread.

    I have to address this issue all the time - and I mean all the time - in my ministry. In fact, not only have I given workshops on after-death communication, I wrote a feature article on this topic for the Christian Research Journal, which was published back in '02 (they asked me to write this after hearing me give a talk on it - very few Christians were addressing this topic publicly at the time, or even now). I also was asked to write an article on this topic for an apologetics journal (published last year) and I address it in my book, SpellBound: The Paranormal Seduction of Today's Kids.

    I basically say this: Just because there are non-normative events in the Bible engineered by God (Samuel appearing to Saul, Moses and Elijah to the 3 disciples, for example), and these are pretty much it except for the passage about the dead coming out of their graves, this does not mean we can pray to dead people.

    I do not take your position on soul sleep - so you and I have a big difference there, but that's another topic so please start another thread on it if you want to discuss that (thanks).

    It is against the principles of sound biblical interpretation to take narrative as prescriptive. In fact, narrative should never be taken as prescriptive unless there are passages that indicate to do this.

    Yet that is what people do when they take accounts such as Samuel and the Moses/Elijah vision -- both of which are narrative accounts -- as prescriptive for praying to Mary or to dead saints.
     
    #18 Marcia, Aug 2, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2009
  19. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right, the Bible is silent on Mary's death so to say that means she was possibly bodily assumed into heaven is an argument from silence, which is fallacious.

    Are you Roman Catholic?

    We know about Elijah and Enoch because it's in the Bible. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if this happened with Mary, God would tell us so. Otherwise, we cannot or should not assume this.

    Additionally, whether Mary was assumed or not has nothing to do with whether her appearances are valid.
     
    #19 Marcia, Aug 2, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2009
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    It leaves the door open for "hey -- I just saw another one of those non-normative events, only instead of Samuel - it was my deceased uncle".

    Or "it was Mary".

    There is no Bible "doctrine" on how many "non-normative exceptions" can exist.

    True - which is why I was very interested to see how you were going to close the door on Marian apparations. You seem to be left with 'well if they are occuring - they are non-normative like the case of Samuel".

    Certainly that is an interesting solution.


    Narrative is confirmation that the event in question "did occur" and also eliminates the objection "according to the bible that can not occur".

    For example - Christ passed through the crowd that tried to stone him. That is "the narrative" - and that is "non normative" because in most cases when a crowd tried to stone someone (like Stephenen or like Paul) they simply grabbed them and stoned them.

    So while Christ's example is "non normative" it still does not allow us to argue "no one else can claim that God enabled them to simply pass through the mob without harm because it is non-normative". In fact the Bible affirms that such a thing can happen - though it is certainly "non-normative" as you say.

    I would argue that in the case of the "really translated" Elijah and the really raised-and-assumed into heaven Moses, standing and speaking with Christ in Matt 17 "in living color" that that too is "non-Normative". So also is the case of an Angel speaking to Zachariah about the birth of John the baptizer - a "non-normative" event.

    But if someone claims that an angel came and spoke to them, or that they saw Elijah -- I would be very skeptical, but I would not declare that "The Bible forbids it" or that the Bible states "that can not happen".

    At best I can say "it happend in the Bible but it was non-normative".

    Which falls far short of "it can not have happened to you" and totally misses 'The bible says that can not happen".

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #20 BobRyan, Aug 2, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2009

Share This Page

Loading...