Does anyone know the particulars on Our Lady's apparitions? I was thinking about this today as I was saying my rosary. I wonder how she decides whom she is going to appear to and when? I wonder if she makes that decision or if God decides when, where and to whom He wants her to appear to?

Does anyone know? I never heard anyone discuss this. Is it a mystery.

Does it depend on the message she has to give and what is going on in the country where she appears?

I wish Mary would appear in the Middle East and deliver a strong message there, and perhaps comfort and protect our military. Oh, well..just a thought.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), April 17, 2004

Answers

MaryLu,

I read on another thread that Mary appeared to Muslims. My guess is that she appears to those who will believe in her appearance and receive it well, and those who need to see her for some reason. God's grace.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 17, 2004.

Thank you, Emily.

I went to the site and read the whole story about Our Lady appearing to a Muslim in Egypt - Amazing, story!

-- (mlc327@juno.com), April 17, 2004.

I'm not sure about official teaching on this, but I think it is safe to say that Mary's appearances to people are part of God's plan, not Mary's plan, and that the saints in heaven are in service to God, just as they were during their earthly lives. God often asks people - either heavenly people or earthly people - to do things for Him. And it is only when we are doing His will, not our own, that we grow spiritually. So, I think it is God who knows when a certain message must be delivered as part of His plan, who will deliver it, and to whom it will be delivered. And he sometimes calls upon Mary, or an angel, or someone else in His service, at those times.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 17, 2004.

Dear MaryLu,

I don't, as well as anyone in the world, know an answer for you. But I can relate this to other things that might help. I'm only a Sophomore in college with a growing faith, but I will try to see what I can do to make things a bit clearer for you.

Divine Providence and Predestination are 2 things that Protestants twist to their own meaning, though these beliefs are championed by such presences as St. Thomas Aquinas, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, and St. Augustine(as well as St. Paul). The crucial thing to understand, that Protestants get wrong, is that in almost every case of Providence, you do not know the "why" until the "what" occurs. After an event happens in history, often times people can see Divine Providence at work. Any instance can prove this. Our Lady had St. Bernadette dig in the mud- the people thought she was a pig and laughed at her. Even those who believed in her apparition questioned the "Why" until the "what" occured. And now, us at the other end can see God's Providence and Predestination at work. Look at what happened through that action; millions of conversions and cures.

So, in relating this to Marian apparitions, I would say that one cannot guess where and when Mary will appear. Just like we won't know the time nor the place of when Christ comes, I don't think we can pinpoint when Mary will come (this exes out those who have been given a gift of revelation, like Marian apparitioners). Only until Mary comes and events take place (the "what"), can we understand the "Why". Hope this helps-

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 17, 2004.

Thank you, Andrew, for that very in-depth answer. You may "only" be a sophmore in college, but you are quite sophisticated and intelligent.

I never questioned 'when' Mary will appear - no one knows that. I was just wondering if she appeared on her own or if God sent her to us. I kind of feel stupid for asking that question now.

Now that I think about it, I don't think angels or Mary would appear on their own..it is through God.

May God walk with you and bless you on your journey of faith.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), April 18, 2004.

MaryLu,

You are right about Mary and the Angels. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, Providence governs all things, and is both the predestination and the government of all things. God predestines, and God governs. Any action that is good comes from Him, since he is the source of all goodness. And thus, with Marian apparitions and angelic intervention producing incredible good, it could only come from within God's Providence. Thanks for your honorable compliments~ God Bless

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 18, 2004.

i think for mary or angels to appear it must be a very important message. OTherwise God will pass messages through other people.

-- chan huynh (universalillusion@hotmail.com), August 29, 2004.

Any supposed apparition which offers any message contrary to God's Holy Word, or takes the focus off Jesus Christ, is quickly condemned by the Church. The very first criterion for acceptance of any supposed apparition is absolute adherence to the truth, revealed to men through the teaching of His Church, including the writings His Church authenticated as the Word of God,and compiled into book form. Nothing contrary to Divine Revelation is ever accepted as genuine by His Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, and sole protector of His Holy Word.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 29, 2004.

May be Mary doesn't decide when and where and to whom She may appear, but could She not just make a suggestion witn Her usual and motherly love and care as in Cana? Over there She only said "They have no wine" and that brought about the first Evangelical Miracle!! Could She not just say today to the Father and the Son: look, over there they are losing the Faith, over there they need consolation.....

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), August 30, 2004.

First of all, the Church never officially proclaims that an apparition "is true". If it did so, the purpoted messages which came through that apparition would be binding on all the faithful. In fact, nothing received through "private revelation", which includes apparitions, is ever binding on the faithful. Catholics are completely free to accept messages which come through approved apparitions, or to ignore them completely. Church "approval" of a purpoted apparition consists of a statement to the effect that nothing connected with the event is contrary to the faith, and that Catholics therefore MAY accept it if they wish.

I don't see how you can say, " If any are false - wouldn't you think they all are?". That makes no sense at all. That is like saying "if any biblical interpretations are false, don't you think they all are?". Or "if any prophecies are false, all prophecy must be false". Yet the Bible clearly distinguishes between false prophets and true prophets.

Of course Christ's message is complete. Nothing Mary could tell us would add to His message. But sometimes we need to be reminded of it. Don't you think that God sometimes sends other human beings into our lives to guide us and help get us on the right path? Haven't you had such people in your life? So if God wishes to send a human messenger, or an angelic one, from heaven, rather than sending another earthly sinner, isn't it His right to do so?

Satan has nothing to gain from our honoring Mary and listening to her, for she always leads us directly to Christ. The only instruction Mary ever gave was "do whatever He tells you". She still tells us this today, not only through the Holy Bible, but whenever and however God desires her to do so.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 30, 2004.

The central message of Fatima is one of renewed commitment to prayer and penance, ideas which are in full accord with the gospel message. The prayer which Mary reportedly gave us through the apparitions at Fatima is ... "Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy". That sounds pretty Christ-centered to me.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 30, 2004.

"I can't help but wonder that isn't this what the Bible says about Jesus? Isn't Jesus our refuge---doesn't He stand at the throne of God, pleading our case? Isn't it only His name by which we can be saved? Doesn't He lead us to the Father?"

A: Of course His name is the only name by which we can be saved. Does the above suggest anything different? And yes, Jesus does lead us to the Father, but He generally does so through the ministry of other people. We are his hands, his mouth, his heart. Doesn't a pastor lead people to God? Don't parents lead their children to God? It is in that capacity, as our mother, given to us by Christ Himself just before He died, that she participates in leading us to God, by constantly reminding us, like wayward children, to "do whatever He tells you".

"Sacrifice yourselves for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary..." Aren't sins against God only? And can't only Christ's sacrifice pay for sinners?

A: All sins are ultimately against God, but we can also sin against one another ...

"Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother SIN AGAINST ME and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" (Matthew 18:21)

"And if he SINS AGAINST YOU seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him." (Luke 17:4)

"And so, by SINNING AGAINST THE BRETHREN and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. (1 Corinthians 8:12)

We "sin against the immaculate heart of Mary" when we do things that violate all that she stands for - purity, faith, humility, obedience to God, and personal holiness; just as we sin against our parents when we violate their love for us and their authority over us; and in so doing, we sin against God Himself.

"I mean---why do we have to make reparation to Mary? Can that be confirmed by God in the Scriptures?"

A: We have to make reparation to anyone we sin against - our parents, our spouses, our children, our friends, our mother, and always our God.

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15-16).

A: The fruit of going to Mary is always deeper union with her Son, for she would not have it any other way. As an intercessor and as our mother, her sole purpose and function is to bring us closer to Him. This fruit is the mark of any true message given to us by God through Mary or through anyone else. If a supposed message does not bring us closer to Christ, it is either a false message, or our hearts and minds are closed to hearing His voice in this particular way, just as people refused to hear His voice spoken through the prophets.

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."

A: This is a passage that Protestants should examine closely, and give some serious thought in prayer. With so many different versions of the gospel message being preached by denominational churches, it is immediately obvious that they cannot all conform to the gospel message accepted by the Apostles. While Protestants are no doubt sincere in their desire to follow Christ, they are actually "trying to please men", whether it be Luther or Wesley or Calvin or Smythe or Eddy or Henry VIII or whoever their particular founder was. As soon as someone says 'I am abandoning the Church founded by Christ and instead will follow Christ the way Luther says I should", he is trying to win the approval of Luther, and rejecting the approval of God Who revealed His divine will that all of His followers would be ONE, as members of the Church He personally founded.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 31, 2004.

"The apparition of Fatima is following along with the misunderstanding that we need forgiveness of venial sin in order to see eternal life. But that is not what the Bible reveals."

A: No, it is not what the Bible reveals, because the Bible reflects the teaching of the Church which preceded it and compiled it, and that is not what the Church teaches. Therefore, if the message of Fatima suggested any such thing it would have been soundly rejected by the Church. Are you sure you know what "venial sin" means?

"The Bible reveals that it is forgiveness of the debt incured in the Garden--that we need forgiveness of. The curse of death is the penalty we pay for rejecting God. Jesus paid that debt for us. We have eternal life in Him when we receive forgiveness of that debt in His name."

A: What the Bible and the Church teach is that we do indeed need freedom from the debt incurred in the Garden, which we receive in Baptism; and having been freed of that debt we will have eternal life IF we live as though we have been freed of that debt, and remain faithful until the end of our earthly lives. However, baptism is not a free ticket to heaven, irrelevant of how we live our lives thereafter.

"The apparition of Fatima presumes Omnipresence--an attribute of God alone--when she claims that she will never leave us. She is not with us. Not unless she is Omnipresent."

A: Not so. Mary does not have to "be everywhere" in order to hear our petitions and intercede for us. It is only necessary that she be in eternity, outside of time and space, and freed of the physical restrictions of the flesh. She is. As are all the saints. Mary is not physically "with" us, but she is accessible to us in all times (since she entered heaven) and places.

"Sins against each other, and the forgiveness or lack there of them, has nothing to do with salvation."

A: They don't?? If I murder you and your family and never repent of that sin, that act will not affect my salvation?? In that case, sin is completely irrelevant. I wonder why the Bible gives so much attention to something that can't have any effect in the long run?

"Mary of Fatima has cashed in on the false elevation of Mary in the Catholic religion, and this huge misunderstanding of what salvation is, how we come by it, and what it really means."

A: Mary was elevated by God Himself when He chose her to be the channel through which the Savior of mankind, and therefore salvation itself, came into the world. The Bible says she is "blessed among women". Do you treat her as such, or do you ignore the Word of God on this point? The Bible says "all generations will call her blessed". Of course, it means all generations of believers. Do you count yourself among this group? Do you view her with the same humility and awe as Elizabeth, saying "who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me"? Or do you close the door in her face, not allowing her to come to you?

Any ideas you have concerning "what salvation is, how we come by it, and what it really means", that are in contention with the teaching of the Catholic Church, were thought up within the past few hundred years by the ordinary men who founded the various conflicting sects of denominational religion in open rebellion against the Church founded by God for all men. Can you honestly think that the beliefs which were universally held by Christians from the time of the Apostles until the 16th century could have been wrong? Or that a modern tradition filled with division, conflict and contradiction could possibly represent a "correction" of original Christian beliefs? Really, it doesn't make a bit of sense. Think about it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 31, 2004.

"Well since no religion or church came before the Word of God--none have preceeded His Word as you falsly claim, I will follow God's Word only on the matter"

A: You are right. The Church did not precede the Word of God. The Church came into being by the spoken Word of God which was given to the Apostles, and the Church continued to faithfully proclaim the Word of God for three and a half centuries before it compiled the Bible. I didn't say the Church preceded the Word of God. I only said that the Church preceded the written record of the Word of God which we call the Bible. But the Word of God was valid from the moment it left the lips of Jesus Christ and was received by the Church. It didn't become any more valid when it was written down. In fact the Word of God made manifest in the teaching of the Church would be just as valid even if it was never written down and never put into book form. As for "following God's word on the matter", that requires that you first have an infallible source of interpretation, so you know what God's Word actually means. Otherwise you are not following God's Word, but only your own personal interpretations of God's Word, which is an entirely different thing; and which is why there is so much disagreement among denomination groups about what God's Word actually says and doesn't say.

"Baptism is of the Holy Spirit--which we receive when we accept Christ as our Savior--applying His sacrifice in our place as an atonement for the debt we owe.. Then we are born-again. Renewed and freed from that penalty and from the power of sin over our lives. "

A: The Word of God specifically says that you can't enter the Kingdom of God unless you are born of water AND the Spirit. Both are necessary for salvation; and both are received simultaneously through the sacrament of Baptism.

"The water baptism simply reflects this deeper spiritual truth."

A: I fully realize that that is the modern Protestant tradition. But it is in direct opposition to what the Christian Church has believed and practiced from the time of the Apostles until the present day. I see no reason to replace the faith of the Apostles with new traditions of men, only a few hundred years old.

"The Bible says nothing about Mary with respect to all the things that the Church has to say."

A: While the Bible does not specifically state every truth about Mary, or about Christ, or about sin, or about any subject, and in fact even specifically states that there are many truths it does not contain, it DOES clearly state that whatsoever the Church defines as binding truth is bound in heaven; and that the Holy Spirit leads the Church to all truth. Do you accept what the Bible says or not? If you do, then you must listen to the Church, since Christ told the Church "he who listens to you listens to Me; and he who rejects you rejects Me". So says the Bible.

"If you murdered someone--I would seriously question your relationship with God in the first place, Paul. Confession or none... "

A: Not necessarily. Those who follow Christ are still sinners. Peter denied Him three times. Peter also cut off a man's ear with his sword, and it is safe to say that it was only because of his bad aim that the man's head wasn't severed. Anyone can commit a grievous sin out of the passion of the moment. I would agree that a professional hit man probably doesn't have much of a relationship with Christ. But someone who kills or commits other serious sin may very well be close to Christ. If a man goes to divinity school, becomes a pastor, devotes twenty or thirty years of his life to preaching the gospel and bringing people to Christ, and then abandons his family and runs off with his secretary, are you going to say he never had a relationship with Christ? Of course he did! But that doesn't make us immune to temptation and sin. Fortunately Jesus recognized that even those who are close to Him will sometimes do things that drive grace from their souls, and break off their relationship with Him. So He provided the holy Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) to enable His beloved to seek and receive forgiveness, and re-enter a life of grace. Thank God!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 31, 2004.

Hi curious,

You said, This is why I know that the Body of Christ is not caught- up in any man-made religion or headquarters at all.

If "man made" described the Catholic Church, you would be right. But the Catholic Church isn't "man made." Why do you think this? I think you would agree that every church consists of human beings and thus, must be visible in some sense. I would venture a guess that most churches that are worthy of the name even have some structure to them. The nondenominational church my good friends attend is led by a pastor. He leads the congregation by delegating leadership roles to members of the congregation. Isn't this a form of structure?

You may think that Rome compiled the Scriptures--but in fact, the Scriptures compiled themselves according to God's divine providence and they were circulating and being used simultaneously as they were being written.

What do you mean by the "Scriptures compiled themselves"? In the example you give, people are still involved in compiling the Scriptures. Who do you think "circulated" and "used" the writings we call Scripture? How do you deal with writings that were accepted by various churches at the time, yet aren't in today's Scripture? What about the writings that were argued over? Who decided which ones to use as a canon if not the church?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 01, 2004.

curious,

I noticed this thread started with Marian apparitions as the topic. If you want to learn more about what the message of Fatima is about, in the words of the visionary Sister Lucia herself, a great book to read is "Calls" from the Message Fatima by Sister Lucia. You can buy it here.

http://www.miraclerosarymission.org/fatima.html

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 01, 2004.

"I think the problem for me is in agreeing just *who* is the church of Jesus Christ."

A: Understandably so. Until a few hundred years ago, every Christian on earth knew where to find the Church of Jesus Christ; but the confusion and chaos caused by the introduction of Protestantism can make it very difficult indeed to sort the wheat from the chaff. Still, many thousands every year do recognize the Church Christ founded, break free of manmade religion, and find their true spiritual home.

"You claim it is the Roman Catholic religion--but that is just a claim."

A: No, it is not "just a claim". It is an incontrovertible historical fact that the Catholic Church was the only Christian church on this planet for 1,000 years following the death and resurrection of Christ, and that it is therefore the one true Church He personally founded on the Apostles to be the foundation of truth and channel of salvation for all men.

"Jesus says that His kingdom is not of this world and that if it were--His servants would raise a sword. But as it is--we may not do so."

A: That's right, His kingdom is not OF this world, just as He Himself is not OF this world. Yet living in His kingdom does begin in this world. That's why He told His disciples they were to be IN the world, but not OF the world, just as He was. That is also why, when questioned by the Pharisees about His kingdom, He told them "the kingdom of God is in your midst" (Luke 17:21) It was right there front of them, in the form of His Church, but they could not see that, due to their spiritual blindness.

"This is why I know that the Body of Christ is not caught-up in any man-made religion or headquarters at all."

A: Indeed! Manmade religion is clearly not the will of God. If He had wanted men to found religions of their own design, He would not have sent His divine Son to found one Church for all men.

"Being born of water AND spirit simply means that we are washed clean of our sinful nature-which is in the physical--and we are renewed spiritually. All by the Word of God and its cleansing power."

A: Our sinful nature is physical? It can be washed away with water? No, the effects of baptism are entirely spiritual, but as in the case of every sacrament, the means by which the spiritual change is brought about is physical.

"You may think that Rome compiled the Scriptures--but in fact, the Scriptures compiled themselves according to God's divine providence and they were circulating and being used simultaneously as they were being written."

A: Obviously, all the texts which eventually became part of the Bible were circulating much earlier. But there was never general agreement about which texts were scriptural and which were not. This problem had two dimensions. First, the texts which are now part of the Bible were not uniformly accepted. Some, like the writings of Paul (except Hebrews) and the Gospels of Matthew and John, were universally accepted. Other writings, like Hebrews, Jude, James, and Revelation, were widely contested, with some local churches (what we would today call "dioceses") accepting them and reading from them at Mass, while other local churches rejected them. The other part of the problem was that a great many other writings, which are not part of the Bible - perhaps a dozen other gospels, close to a hundred letters or epistles, and several additional texts were likewise widely contested, used in some churches, rejected in others. It was precisely this state of confusion which caused the Pope to convene a council to settle the matter. At that council (two councils in close succession actually), the gathered Catholic bishops studied all of the documents being used in any of the local churches, and discerned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit just which writings could definitely be considered the inspired Word of God. They excluded all but 73 texts - 46 Old Testament texts and 27 New Testament texts. Those 73 inspired scriptures were bound into a single book, which they called "the Book" - in Greek, "Biblios" - and that in a nutshell is how the Bible came to be.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 01, 2004.

Sorry, curious, you can’t say, “I just disagree” when you are disagreeing with recorded historical facts. The Old Testament scriptures were NOT “exactly as they are today”. The Jews disputed over which books and parts of books they would accept, and so did the early Christians. Even today most Protestants disagree with Catholics on this point. And some early Christians called for the whole Old Testament to be tossed out. Paul, NONE of the New Testament books were “universally accepted”. Some refused to accept John’s Gospel and several of Paul’s letters. Some rejected all four of our Gospels and used a different Gospel (one small Eastern Church still does so to this day).

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 01, 2004.

You are one confused guy/gal, Curious. I suggest you get your nose out of the books of self-serving ideologues like Mr Lutzer and read books by independent qualified real historians. The Jewish canon was not decided until centuries after Jesus’ Ascension. The last book of the English Old Testament is not Malachi but 2 Maccabees. That is until the 19th century when the protestants arbitrarily decided to rip out several OT books because they conflicted with their novel beliefs and to save on shipping costs.

Since you claim the Bible as your only source of belief, where in the Bible does “Christ frequently refered to the whole Old Testament as a unit.” ? He does not, He refers to the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms etc. as separate things. The phrase “Old Testament” or “Old Covenant” was invented by Christians because Christ referred to Himself and his Church as the “New Covenant”. Jews never call their scriptures “the Old Testament”.

The rest of your post is a confused and irrelevant non-response to the historical facts which Paul and I presented to you. You even contradict yourself. You say Matthew quotes 2 Chronicles, then you say Chronicles (which is now apparently only a single book!) is NOT quoted anywhere in the New Testament!

Neither the books of the Old Testament nor those of the New Testament “chose themselves”. The very idea is absurd. To think that millions of people all unanimously and independently decided on the very same books and parts of books and versions of each book, and no others! LOL! It’s as absurd as thinking that millions of people can read the Bible and independently interpret its meaning in exactly the same way. The 40,000+ different and contradictory protestant denominations prove that this doesn’t happen. That’s why Christ gave us the Catholic Church to guide us. He didn’t give us the Bible or anything else in writing.

The Catholic Church made the Bible. Its bishops and priests wrote the New Testament. Its bishops chose which books, which parts of books, and which version of each book, should be included in both the Old and New Testaments. I know you find this hard to accept because it challenges the very basis of your protestant beliefs. But they are the hard historical facts which you cannot deny.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 02, 2004.

-- (bold@off.com), September 02, 2004.

Hi curious!

So, your point is after Jesus was crucified, died, rose, and ascended into Heaven, the Jews decided to make a canon of scriptures which proves that the cannon was closed hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, and which also proves that all the prophets and testimonies from 2 Chronicles to the birth of Christ Council fo Jamnia were false, like John the Baptist who was heretical, and just like Christ himself, who wasn't the Messiah, and who didn't die and rise from the dead - which goes to prove that Christianity is a false religion.

The entire New Testament had been penned before the Council of Jamnia, most of it by Jews like Peter, Paul, James, and John who were counted among the Chosen People of God. One wonders why Jamnia rejected it. Actually, one doesn't because their adoption of their canon rejects Christ and His prophets. That says enough, IMO.

I hope in your relative view of things this doesn't mean Christ was the Martin Luther of his day, a protestant against the True Church of God, the Jewish Church. Although, I have to admit it does seem like it. I guess one really can't blame you for going against His Church. Your worldly view is the culprit. Don't get me wrong here, you won't be free once you leave it behind. You would become a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Grace be with you,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), September 02, 2004.

Repost for Html

Hi curious!

So, your point is after Jesus was crucified, died, rose, and ascended into Heaven, the Jews decided to make a canon of scriptures which proves that the cannon was closed hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, and which also proves that all the prophets and testimonies from 2 Chronicles to the birth of Christ Council fo Jamnia were false, like John the Baptist who was heretical, and just like Christ himself, who wasn't the Messiah, and who didn't die and rise from the dead - which goes to prove that Christianity is a false religion.

The entire New Testament had been penned before the Council of Jamnia, most of it by Jews like Peter, Paul, James, and John who were counted among the Chosen People of God. One wonders why Jamnia rejected it. Actually, one doesn't because their adoption of their canon rejects Christ and His prophets. That says enough, IMO.

I hope in your relative view of things this doesn't mean Christ was the Martin Luther of his day, a protestant against the True Church of God, the Jewish Church. Although, I have to admit it does seem like it. I guess one really can't blame you for going against His Church. Your worldly view is the culprit. Don't get me wrong here, you won't be free once you leave it behind. You would become a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Grace be with you,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), September 02, 2004.

No, Curious, instead of ignorantly recycling the pap you read from Mr Lutzer and his ilk, YOU need to look at, and read and re-read if necessary, actual copies of:

- the Jewish Bible;

- the original Christian Bible as composed, edited and chosen by the Catholic Church in the 4th century;

- the original 16th century Protestant Bible which contained the books Mr Lutzer rejects (it was only the later protestants who decided to rip them out); - accounts of the historical process by which the Bible came to be, by independent unbiased reputable historians and Bible experts.

When you have done this you will see just how ludicrous is the stupid argument you have recycled word for word from the self-serving Mr Lutzer.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 02, 2004.

i find curious's arguements to be rather lacking based on the fact that they rely on certain very shaky assumptions. namely:

1) that in nearly 2000 years the jewish people have not changed their scripture at all to reflect the overwhelming Christian majority.

2) that understanding of scripture has been universally accepted worldwide ever since the time of Christ. we know this CAN'T be true, because the protestants chopped seven books from scripture, proving that even today there are people who don't understand or agree.

3) That Jesus only quotes from existing scripture, therefore that must be all the scriptures there were at the time. this is faulty... without having the additional scriptures, there is no way to know whether or not Jesus quoted from them all the time. the only thing we can know is that because the church rejected the additional scriptures (as did the jewish church) they may therefore have been inspired, but not divine truth.

4) that peter quotes paul's letters, etc, because they are universally recognized as scripture. this is an incorrect assumption, peter MOST LIKELY quoted paul's work because it had obvious value to it, that peter appreciated and knew would be effective in evangalizing.

5) That the jewish old testament first and last events determine that the old testament hasnt changed. logically speaking, this only determine that the first and last murders in the old testament are still there. we have no way of a posteriori knowledge that there weren't additional books in the middle.

theres more too, but i have to go to class now... will write later

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 02, 2004.

Sigh! You obviously aren’t listening, Curious. If you had actually looked up the sources I told you about, you would not just keep repeating the same misinformed statements. It is utterly false and ludicrous to claim that “the Hebrew Bible was canonized by Jesus Himself--and that His Scriptures looked exactly like what the Jews have to this day.” If YOU want to argue--YOU will have to argue with Jesus and the Jewish Hebrew Scriptures, and with ALL reputable historians and Bibliologists, Catholic, protestant, Jewish and other.

The Jews excluded some books from their bible only in the 4th century, AFTER the Catholics had decided their canon of scripture. The Jews did this partly to try to accentuate their differences from the Catholics, who had based their choice of OT books on the Septuagint (“LXX”) version used by the vast majority of Jews. Not that the Church needed “approval” by the Jews to decide what to include in the Church’s own scriptures.

Later still, the Jews added several further books to their Bible. Neither the Catholic Church nor most protestants accept these books as part of their Bibles.

I quote The Oxford Companion to the Bible (a source which is not at all pro-Catholic):

"Until recently it was commonly assumed that Jews of the period immediately before and after the beginning of the Christian era had two canons, one that was current in Palestine and another in Alexandria, the greatest center of Jewish life in the Hellenistic world. But newer evidence, including that from Qumran, suggests a more complex reconstruction, and indeed that the use of the word canon may be somewhat inappropriate, since the list of included books was not explicitly fixed ....The definition and final closing of the Jewish canon was in large measure due to ....the need for self- definition in the face of the threat presented by the rise of an aggressive Christian church. Christians...accepted the scriptures in the form most accessible to them, the Greek Septuagint. Jews.... reacted by emphatically rejecting the Septuagint and insisting that only those ancient books that were writtten in Hebrew could be regarded as authoritative. [However] Even such books as Sirach and 1 Maccabees, which had clearly been written originally in Hebrew, were rejected."

The strangest thing about the Anglicans/Episcopalians excluding these books from their Bibles is that the laws of their church actually REQUIRE these books to be included in any edition of the Bible authorized for use in public worship, and they make considerable use of them in their lectionary!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 02, 2004.

You have it backwards. Seven books of sacred Scripture were never removed until the "reformers" had to remove them because the scriptures conflicted with their new doctrines. It was for the same reason that the "reformers" fully intended to remove three New Testament books. It is only by virtue of the outrage of their constituents that the New Testament scriptures remained intact.

You can't have it both ways. Either the "reformers" had the authority to remove books from the Bible or they didn't. If they had the authority to remove Old Testament books then they also had the authority to remove New Testament books. Yet the New Testament books they had targeted you regard infallibly as the Word of God. If they didn't have authority to desecrate the New Testament, then then didn't have authority to desecrate the Old Testament either. The Bible as originally compiled under the guidance of the Holy Spirit had 73 books - 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament. It still does. It always will.

Likewise, either the bishops of the Catholic Church were guided by the Holy Spirit in compiling the Canon of Scripture, or they were not. If they were guided by the Spirit, then we know with certainly that the 73 writings they selected are the inspired Word of God. However, if they made 7 errors (or 10 errors as the "reformers" claimed), then it is clear they were not guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore we have no way of knowing with certainty that ANY of their selections are inspired. It's all or nothing. It makes no sense at all to say "I reject 7 (or 10) of the scriptures the Church defined as canonical, but I accept that the rest of their selections are infallibly the Word of God".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 03, 2004.

As I already pointed out, early believers did not uniformly agree on what was scripture and what wasn't. In fact history reveals that the situation was quite chaotic. Otherwise the council would never have been called to settle the matter once and for all.

I never said that anyone removed anything from "the original Hebrew Scriptures". That is irrelevant and is not my concern. I am not Jewish. What they removed sections from was the CHRISTIAN BIBLE, as defined once and for all time by the Christian Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church's discernment in this matter is the ONLY way ANYONE can know what is scripture and what is not. Therefore as I said above, if anyone is free to remove parts of the Bible at will, then the scriptural status of all parts of the Bible is in question.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 03, 2004.

"Curious",

The seven deuterocanonicals were actually found in the Septuagint, which was the Bible used by Jesus and his disciples.

As for the verse you refer to in which Jesus supposedly formed the canon...

Matt. 23:35 (NIV) And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Scott Hahn explains that this quote, "from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah" was a common saying or phrase among the Jews. The fact that it was a common saying relates in no way whatsoever to the canon. In this passage, Jesus mentioned *nothing* about forming the canon or anything even remotely related to it. Thus it is ludicrous to say that He was forming the canon here. In fact, as Paul M. pointed out, it was NOT clear to the early Christians what exactly was included in the New Testament Scriptures. For example, many questioned the inspiration of the book of Revelation, which Christians today consider inspired. And other books were considered Scripture, only to be weeded out later.

You also have to understand who Jesus is addressing in this passage - - the teachers of the law and Pharisees. They, along with all Jews, rejected the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals simply based on the fact that they were written in Greek. If you use this as your criteria, then you would have to throw out almost the entire New Testament. Jesus was addressing them and reaching them on their own terms, while chastising them nonetheless.

Had Jesus referred to something from the deuterocanonicals when addressing them in order to prove a point, it would have been akin to a Catholic trying to convince a Protestant of some doctrine by using the deuterocanonicals. Protestants and Jews considered them uninspired. The Jews did because they were written in Greek, and they wanted their Scriptures to be only Hebrew.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

Faith said: The truth is that the Catholic Church *added* them, against the approval of the Jewish people.

The Catholic Church did not need to "add" books. These books were already Scripture. Regardless, though, the approval of the Jews did not matter at that point (AD 90 when the Jews officially rejected the deuterocanonicals) because they killed Jesus and rejected Him as the Messiah. When Jesus came, He established a new authority (Peter and the apostles).

This is why you see that Jesus before His crucifixion still submitted to the authority of the High Priest by answering him when he was spoken to. Answering the High Priest when questioned was part of Jewish law, and Jesus followed God's law in that respect. However, after Jesus was killed, Peter (as leader of the apostles) no longer obeyed the High Priest when he was told not to preach. The Jews had lost their authority to determine Scripture at that point. Jesus established His Church to do this.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

curious/faith,

you are still operating under the faulty premises that simply because Jesus named the first and the last murder of the OT, that the nothing between those two events changed. the conclusion does not logically flow from the premise and therefore the arguement is not only unsound, it is also invalid. try again.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 03, 2004.

Curious, instead of reading any of the posts directed to you, you have simply ignored them and keep repeating the same ludicrously false statements. I suggest you pray with us that God will open your closed mind to consider the facts of history, not the made-up “facts” which you regurgitate here.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 03, 2004.

Faith said: Jesus quotes from almost evey Old Testament book that is found in the Hebrew Bible.

Actually, this is a ludicrous claim. Even given the entire New Testament (not just Jesus' quotes), there are a number of books that are never quoted in the entire thing. Books that never appear quoted in the NT: Ecclesiastes, Esther, Song of Songs, 1 Chronicles, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, and Nahum.

Furthermore, other (non-inspired) works such as Enoch and the Assumption of Moses are referred to in Jude. Paul quotes the pagan poet Menander saying, "Bad company corrupts good character" (1 Cor. 15:33), the pagan poet Aratus saying "We are his offspring" (Acts 17:28), the pagan poet Epimenides saying "In him we live and move and have our being." Paul even calls Epimenides a prophet (Ti 1:12).

This information was taken from Mark Shea's excellent book, By What Authority? (pg. 61-62). I highly recommend that you check it out.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), September 03, 2004.

"My whole point is about how the Jews came to know their Scriptures - long before any Catholic council sat down to inform them of something they didn't need help with."

A: I don't know why this is so important to you, but yes, obviously the Jews didn't need the Christian Church to define their Scriptures for them. This is 100% correct and 100% irrelevant to the present discussion.

"The period between the Old and New Testaments is refered to as the 400 silent years - where God did not speak."

A: The Jews may see it that way but the Christian Church never saw it that way since they identified seven books of Sacred Scripture dating from that very time period.

"Therefore - it makes sense that they would not accept the books that were written between that period."

A: If that's the way "they" feel about it then yes, "they" would not accept those books; but again that is completely irrelevant. The Holy Spirit led the Christian Church to accept those books as part of the Christian Canon. End of story. Do you or do you not believe that the Holy Spirit is the source of the Christian Canon of Scripture? If you do, then the question of how the Jews view things is irrelevant. The Holy Spirit takes precedence. If you don't believe that, then you don't have anything that can reliably be called the Word of God.

"I was talking about Jewish canon...and clearly the Catholic Church had no say in the matter".

A: Right (except for the decision to include the Jewish Canon in the Christian Bible, which was the decision of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit). Right. Irrelevant.

"We would also know our New Testament Scriptures in much the same way that the Jews did--without a Catholic council to tell us what was already understood centuries earlier."

A: Well apparently you need to hang onto that misinformation even through several knowledgeable people have informed you that history reveals exactly the opposite. Nothing was universally understood until defined by the Church. Then everything was universally understood until the Protestant Rebellion disrupted Christian and Scriptural unity.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 04, 2004.

The 73 books of the Canon of the Holy Bible were finalized for all time in 397 at the Council of Carthage, after much of the preliminary work had been done at the Council of Hippo in 394.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 04, 2004.

Your understanding is incorrect. Trent reaffirmed the Canon exactly as it was defined at Carthage, without adding, removing or changing a single word. As I said above, how the Jews viewed these books relative to their Canon is completely irrelevant. All that matters is that the Holy Spirit guided the Church to include them in the Christian Canon. They can be removed only in defiance of the Holy Spirit, regardless of any excuses which might be offered in an effort to justify such an action.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 04, 2004.

-- (italics@off.com), September 04, 2004.

curious,

I am not looking to be convinced that I am wrong. I was looking to share some truth with you.

you really should take a look at the thread titled "rules of the forum" because it appears you have strongly misjudged your presence here. you are looking to share 'truth' of your opinion, which is not wanted here... therefore your aim here should be open discourse at the very least, since you are not here to learn at all.

when you come to this place to 'teach' you waste your time wholly and completely. no one that i know of has ever converted away from catholicism because of something said on this forum... and beleive me, your unknowing half truths and lies are nothing that hasnt been said here a thousand times. FURTHER, you should realize that there are those here who have taken YEARS of theological training. Until you can treat us as your equals instead of lesser people, your words hold no potency, themselves lacking in christian charity, much less truth.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 04, 2004.

I don’t know why you you use the name “curious” because you have displayed absolutely NIL curiosity. You’re not “debating historical facts” at all. People have presented the historical facts to you, but instead of trying to understand them, you just ignore them and keep repeating word-for-word the erroneous claims you started with, which themselves you copied from some semi-literate protestant fundamentalist bigot. You obviously do NOT “realize it can be frustrating to learnm new things” because you have shown no capacity to learn. It is only you who is “avoiding the evidence and real discussion”. Repeating the same thing 10 times doesn’t kmake it right. You must have historical proof if you’re going to make assertions about history. Especially if you make ridiculous statements like “we all would recognize God’s word without anyone telling us which books are God’s word”.

To take just one aspect of your absurd claim: you put great faith in what you consider the unguided judgment of the Jews as to which books are from God. The Jews reject ALL of the books of the New Testament and say they are NOT from God. Why ? Why would they reject them if their divine origin is so obvious to everybody?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 05, 2004.

And yet you insist that our choice of books for our Old Testament must be (some of) the choice made by (some of) these “blind” Jews, instead of the choice made by the Church Christ founded to guide us? LOL! Curious, your “curious” reasoning is getting “curiouser and curioser”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 05, 2004.

Curious, there are billions of "fallible men of God" (Jews, Muslims, Sikhs etc.) who sincerely and reverently worship God and honestly try to fathom His will. They reject the whole New Testament. Most of them also reject the whole Old Testament. Instead they regard other writings as the Word of God. How do you propose to prove to them that the books of your little denomination’s current version of the Bible are self-evidently the only books which are the inspired word of God, and that there are no other? The books themselves make no claim to infallibility. The only guarantee we have that any book is divinely inspired is that it was written, edited, chosen and compiled by the Church which Christ founded and which He promised would last for all time to guide us to Him.

But your argument boils down to saying that, just because the particular version of the Bible which, by historical accident, first fell into your possession because of your encounter with a preacher of a certain denomination, then that must be God’s Providence that that version is the only correct version of God’s word, and that the versions which His Providence has delivered to the vast majority of other Christians are false. You declare that a certain group of "fallible men of God" was inspired by Divine Providence to select YOUR version of the Old Testament, but that these men were totally wrong about the New Testament and that God chose a totally different group of "fallible men of God" to choose YOUR version of the New Testament. Just because you say so. No offence, curious, but where do you get the authority to make this infallible declaration? What is your basis for declaring that certain "fallible men of God" are definitely INfallible in making ONE choice (but no other)and that a totally different group of "fallible men of God" are definitely infallible in making another choice (but no other)?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 05, 2004.

No, curious, our Bibles are very different. Your Bible (if it’s like most protestant Bibles) not only omits 7 books, it also omits parts of several other books. It is also almost certainly an English translation which has not been authorized and approved by the Church Christ founded and which produced the Bible, so it certainly contains errors of translation. It also probably contains a lot of tendentious and faulty interpretations.

“This is something many from your Church did not accept.” Yes, as I said above, not only these seven, but also ALL of the other books of what is now the Bible, were not accepted by various groups of Catholics, until the Church ruled on the matter in the 4th century. But wait, before you said that ALL Christians rejected these 7 books until the Church arbitrarily added them to the canon. Now you are saying that only SOME Christians rejected them. Which one is your real story? You see, when you base your argument on the lies of those who twist the historical facts to suit their purpose, you end up contradicting yourself.

“They are second class and are not written by a prophet or an apostle.” All books of the Bible are the inspired Word of God. These 7 are not “second class”. Many of the books which you DO accept were NOT written by a prophet or an apostle. Some books you accept are ascribed to a prophet or apostle but internal evidence shows that that apostle or prophet could not possibly have written all (or in some cases any) of the book. Some of the books you accept are by anonymous authors.

You actually think that Muslims and Jews don’t believe in God because they reject the divinity of Christ!?! You are even more ignorant and bigoted than I thought. I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you back to the home of all Christians; the home your forefathers rejected some time in the last 480 years. You have the facts before you; now it’s up to you to act upon them and stop kicking against the pricks.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 05, 2004.

I have studied and read up about this

reading propaganda produced by anti-catholic bigots with an agenda is not study or research, it is affirmationof a bias you already had. many people here have quoted fully objective sources which fly in the face of your "proofs" and yet you pull the wool down over your eyes... how can you ever profess to know Christ if all you ever learn of Him is simply affirmation of YOUR personal beliefs, and not the truth?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 06, 2004.

I can know Christ through His Word to us--not through a religion. The apostles testify about the truth and we can know everything we need to know--through His Word.

you say this, and yet your entire knowledge of scriptural history is based on one man who made alot of logically fallable conjecture, and is contradicted by all sorts of objective sources. it would seem that your faith is divided between Christ and fundamentalist authors, since you bear almost religious devotion to the lies of a non historian.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 06, 2004.

"I can know Christ through His Word to us--not through a religion. The apostles testify about the truth and we can know everything we need to know--through His Word"

A: That's right! In fact, His Word is the only way we can know about Him. He identified His Word when He told the leaders of His Church "He who hears you hears Me". God Himself, in this statement, has declared "the teaching of My Church is My Word". That's why the Scriptures refer to His Church as "the foundation of truth". The inadequacy of the Bible to provide the truth apart from authoritative interpretation is obvious in the doctrinal chaos of Protestantism. A structure cannot stand when removed from its foundation. The truth cannot stand without the Church, which is its foundation according to the Word of God. The teaching of His Church was the Word of God before the New Testament texts were written. The teaching of His Church was the Word of God before the Bible was compiled. The teaching of His Church would continue to be the Word of God even if the Bible was never written or compiled. That's why the teaching of His Church remains solid and unchanging after 2,000 years, while human interpretation of the Bible leads to nothing but fragmentation and conflicting beliefs.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 06, 2004.

Dear All,

As it is know, the truth according to the bible is that GOD so loved the world that he came down to earth in the person of Jesus Christ to save us from Sin, redeem & connect us to Him. Our Main Focus in prayer, worship & fellowship should be centered only to our lord, he said come to me all those who are tired and burdened and i will give rest , what so ever you ask in my name shall be done, We have such a loving GOD so caring & Loving that it be samefull on our part to even think of direct our paryer's to any saint let us not forget even St.Mary also said, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour" [Luke 1:46,47]. Again, Mary admits her estate as the handmaiden of God and not "Mother of God". Admiting her estate as a handmaiden because God used her instrumentally as a vessel to conceive the Lord Jesus Christ.By Marys own words, she removes any idea of pre-emanance so as not to assume exaltation above God s calling upon her life. "For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" [Luke 1:48]. I hope most of you would have got the message, give GOD all his Due for we all have been brought with a price and we be worthy,

Thank you,

Shalome,

-- Christy (mark_gwsblr@vsnl.net), November 23, 2004.

Dear All,

As it you know, the truth according to the bible is that GOD so loved the world that he came down to earth in the person of Jesus Christ to save us from Sin, redeem & connect us to Him. Our Main Focus in prayer, worship & fellowship should be centered only to our lord, he said come to me all those who are tired and burdened and i will give rest , what so ever you ask in my name shall be done, We have such a loving GOD so caring & Loving that it be samefull on our part to even think of direct our paryer's to any saint let us not forget even St.Mary also said, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour" [Luke 1:46,47]. Again, Mary admits her estate as the handmaiden of God and not "Mother of God". Admiting her estate as a handmaiden because God used her instrumentally as a vessel to conceive the Lord Jesus Christ.By Marys own words, she removes any idea of pre-emanance so as not to assume exaltation above God s calling upon her life. "For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" [Luke 1:48]. I hope most of you would have got the message, give GOD all his Due for we all have been brought with a price and we be worthy,

Thank you,

Shalome,

-- Christy (mark_gwsblr@vsnl.net), November 23, 2004.

Dear Christy,

Thanks for your concern, but as Catholics we have a perfectly clear understanding of Mary's role in our Christian lives. We respect and love her as Jesus Himself did. We regard her as "blessed among women" because God said she is. We honor her as the willing channel through whom the Savior of mankind came into the world. We ask her to pray for us because she is a fellow Christian, and one whom Jesus specifically gave to us as our mother. However, we do not offer to her anything that rightfully belongs to God. That would be idolatry, and our Church clearly condemns idolatry in all its forms.

The Bible, which was compiled by our Church under divine guidance, tells us "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." This is the unchanging, infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, preserved in Scripture so that you also may know it. However, I find no place in the Word of God that tells me "Thou shalt talk only to the Lord thy God". Prayer is simply communication. Surely I am free to ask my family and friends to pray for me. Surely God wants me to do so. The Church is God's family. I have a great many family members who are still earthly sinners like me, and I have a great many family members who are now before the eternal throne of God. Surely there is no reason why I should not ask all of them to pray for me. Surely God wants me to do so.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 23, 2004.