The newspaper this morning carried a short AP article telling us that the Roman Catholic Church has recognized a chapel in Champion, WI, as the only site in the USA which had an official siting of the Virgin Mary. The story goes that Mary appeared three times to Belgium immigrant Adele Brise in 1859, and since that time Catholics have visited the site to pray for miracles. I found an article with the full story at
Questions for the Romanists:
1. One woman says she saw Mary appear to her three times. Were there any witnesses? No.
2. How was Mary identified? Surely no one knows what she looked like since there are no photographs of her. So how do we know it wasn’t some other woman coming back from the dead claiming to be Mary? How do we know it isn’t demonic?
3. Can you show me in scripture where we are supposed to be talking to the dead? Doesn’t Scripture instead speak against necromancy?
4. Why is it that Marian “visions” almost always give unbiblical messages? Even in this one “Mary” identified herself by the unbiblical title “Queen of Heaven” with the unbiblical claim that she “prays for sinners.” Isn’t it interesting that “Mary” always repeats Roman Catholic dogma?
5. The vision supposedly told Adele to “Gather the children in this wild country, and teach them what they should know for salvation.” Since Adele knew only the Romanist idea of salvation, wouldn’t Satan rather have that version being propagated?
The Romanist Church claims that it “judges apparitions on the basis of their consistency with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teachings of the Church...” However, they really only judge in relation to their tradition and teachings, and never on Scripture.
Here’s the bottom line: “For even satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.” 2 Cor. 11:14-15.
The vision seen by Adele Brise, if she did see one, was not - and could not have been - the Virgin Mary. There is no biblical warrant for such visions.
And lastly, it is no more than superstition for Catholics to go to any particular place to pray for miracles; it doesn’t matter where one prays.
7 comments:
The Catholics and Orthodox usually put forward their (arguably fictional) doctrine called the "Harrowing of Hell" to prove that it is now okay to talk to dead people. Never mind that dead saints (such as the prophet Samuel) were already said to be "alive," even prior to the Crucifixion, as in Luke 20:38. Thus, the Harrowing of Hell wouldn't really make a difference there.
I think the better Catholic argument would be that Jesus spoke to Moses and Elijah. But we don't really get any indication that Jesus sought that out. It just seemed to happen as God's doing.
Saul was allowed by God to talk to Samuel so Samuel could tell him the sin he was committing by doing so.
Moses and Elijah were with Jesus for the purpose of verifying who he was and his divinity.
These are the only examples in Scripture of the dead talking to anyone. And, as I noted, we are told talking to the dead - or rather attempting to do so - is wrong.
Of course the Romanists say Mary isn't dead, nor are any other saints - they are spiritually alive. That's nothing but wordplay.
Anyway, The mother of Jesus could not have still been a virgin at the time of her death, as she had other children after Jesus. Thus, calling her "The Virgin Mary" is simply wrong.
The Bible mentions Jesus having brothers and sisters, and one of the authors of later letters to the churches is often identified as James, brother of Jesus. I don't know if that fraternity has ever been established as historical fact or not, but we know, without a doubt, that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Hi Mark,
You are 100% correct. I address that whole issue with a previous post about Catholicism's Mary vs the real one: http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/mary-mother-of-church-is-not-mary-of.html
Even in this one “Mary” identified herself by the unbiblical title “Queen of Heaven”...
Ah, but that is a title you'll find in the Bible! Jeremiah talks about her. Unfortunately for her devotees though, it's pretty clear that whoever The Queen of Heaven is, God detests her.
I wonder whether in her next appearance she'll exhort her followers to secure their salvation with baked goods...
I'm not aware that the Church teaches what you suggest she teaches. The Church knows that what the verse means (she wrote it!).
I am curious why you would think 2 Tim 3:16 somehow supports your theory that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority. Where does 2 Tim teach that? In every version I've read, 2 Tim 3:16 (in context) teaches that the [OT] Scriptures have equal authority as the Sacred Tradition (teaching authority).
Also, there is nothing "circular" about the Church's beliefs. The Church pre-dates the Bible; her authority pre-dates NT Scripture. With her authority, she not only gave us the Bible, but is the body that interprets it. What is circular, however, is Protestantism's attempt to swipe an already-created canon, ignore the authority that matter-of-factly created it, then use it to somehow establish a religion that, essentially teaches that "the Bible is what the Bible says it is."
So, if you are really trying to "answer Catholics" then perhaps you should actually present Catholicism instead of a straw man. That is, after all, how good apologetics is done.
Anonymous,
I don't know what verse to which you are referring. But the Roman Catholic Church, which didn't exist for almost 400 years after the Resurrection of Christ, didn't write ANYTHING we find in the Bible.
The CHRISTIAN church (NOT the PAPIST church) didn't exist before the O.T., and it existed during the writing of the N.T., and it was CHRISTIANS, not papists, who wrote the N.T.
Everything I have written about the papist church is 100% accurate, taken from their teachings.
Post a Comment