Priest of Medjugorje Visons of Mary Defrocked

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

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

In XC
-

 

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

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

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

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

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

in Christ,

Bob

 

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

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

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

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

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

in Christ,

Bob

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

In XC
-

 

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

So this thread is not about the middle ages.

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

in Christ,

bob

 

Really? -- How so?

err.. umm... "no".

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

Possibly you missed that "detail".

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

You seem to be upset about the article.

Is there something you would like to share??

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

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

in Christ,

Bob

 

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting switch. I don't argue that.

I don't recall giving my definition for something.

Your response creates two gaps.

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

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

in Christ,

Bob

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Pagan prayer methods.

 

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

Detail details. Turns out they do have meaning.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Question for the class - from the OP

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

Are you familiar with the RC teaching on this point?

in Christ,

Bob

 

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

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

Where 2 Maccabees states

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in Christ,

Bob

 

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

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

in Christ,

Bob