Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In some cases, bishops cannot deny the obvious. The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, or the Miraculous Image of Guadalupe, or Fatima, believers and skeptics alike where thousands witnessed the spinning of the sun that dried everything up during a rain storm, for example. But even those, common sense demands that investigations be carried out, it doesn't mean bishops have no discernment. Mary on a taco or stains on a cement wall are silly and not worth the time. Bishops usually step in when a large number of people are affected. Bishops can only determine if something is worthy of belief, they never say they must be believed.
The Miracle of Lanciano seems inappropriate to me since it sends what I think is a wrong message. The real miracle is that what looks like ordinary bread and wine is changed spiritually. Saying that can be changed into ordinary flesh and blood seems contrary to that.

Guadalupe was controversial for a long time. I'll cite Wikipedia which gives its sources if you're interested.

Our Lady of Guadalupe - Wikipedia

A more complete early description of the apparition occurs in a 16-page manuscript called the Nican mopohua, which was acquired by the New York Public Library in 1880, and has been reliably dated in 1556. This document, written in Nahuatl, but in Latin script, tells the story of the apparitions and the supernatural origin of the image. It was probably composed by a native Aztec man, called Antonio Valeriano, who had been educated by Franciscans. The text of this document was later incorporated into a printed pamphlet which was widely circulated in 1649.
In spite of these documents, there are no written accounts of the Guadalupe vision by Catholic clergymen of the 16th century, as there ought to have been if the event had the Christian importance it is claimed to have had. In particular, the canonical account of the vision also features archbishop Juan de Zumárraga as a major player in the story, but, although Zumárraga was a prolific writer, there is nothing in his extant writings that can confirm the indigenous story.

The written record that does exist suggests the Catholic clergy in 16th century Mexico were deeply divided as to the orthodoxy of the native beliefs springing up around the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, with the Franciscan order (who then had custody of the chapel at Tepeyac) being strongly opposed to the outside groups, while the Dominicans supported it.

The main promoter of the story and those native believers was the Dominican Alonso de Montúfar, who succeeded the Franciscan Juan de Zumárraga as archbishop of Mexico. In a 1556 sermon Montúfar commended popular devotion to "Our Lady of Guadalupe," referring to a painting on cloth (the tilma) in the chapel of the Virgin Mary at Tepeyac, where certain miracles had also occurred. Days later, Fray Francisco de Bustamante, local head of the Franciscan order, delivered a sermon denouncing the native belief and believers. He expressed concern that the Catholic Archbishop was promoting a superstitious regard for an indigenous image:

The devotion at the chapel ... to which they have given the name Guadalupe was prejudicial to the Indians because they believed that the image itself worked miracles, contrary to what the missionary friars had been teaching them, and because many were disappointed when it did not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe#cite_note-FOOTNOTEPoole,_p._60-24
The banner of the Mexican conquistador Hernan Cortes from year 1521, which was kept within the Archbishop's villa during the time of the Guadalupe apparitions.
The next day Archbishop Montúfar opened an inquiry into the matter. At the inquiry, the Franciscans repeated their position that the image encouraged idolatry and superstition, and four witnesses testified to Bustamante's claim that the image was painted by an Indian, with one witness naming him "the Indian painter Marcos". This could refer to the Aztec painter Marcos Cipac de Aquino, who was active at that time. But "if he did, he apparently did so without making a preliminary sketches – in itself then seen as a near-miraculous procedure.... Cipac may well have had a hand in painting the Image, but only in painting the additions, such as the angel and moon at the Virgin's feet", claims Prof. Jody Brant Smith (referring to Philip Serna Callahan's examination of the tilma using infrared photography in 1979).

Ultimately Archbishop Montúfar (himself a Dominican) decided to end Franciscan custody of the shrine. From then on the shrine was kept and served by diocesan priests under the authority of the archbishop. Moreover, Archbishop Montúfar authorized the construction of a much larger church at Tepeyac, in which the tilma was later mounted and displayed.

The report of this 1556 inquiry is the most extensive documentation concerning the Virgin of Guadalupe from the 16th century, and significantly, it makes no mention of Juan Diego, the miraculous apparition, or any other element from the legend.

In the late 1570s, the Franciscan historian Bernardino de Sahagún denounced the cult at Tepeyac and the use of the name "Tonantzin" or to call her Our Lady in a personal digression in his General History of the Things of New Spain, in the version known as the Florentine Codex.

At this place [Tepeyac], [the Indians] had a temple dedicated to the mother of the gods, whom they called Tonantzin, which means Our Mother. There they performed many sacrifices in honor of this goddess ... And now that a church of Our Lady of Guadalupe is built there, they also called her Tonantzin, being motivated by those preachers who called Our Lady, the Mother of God, Tonantzin. While it is not known for certain where the beginning of Tonantzin may have originated, but this we know for certain, that, from its first usage, the word refers to the ancient Tonantzin. And it was viewed as something that should be remedied, for their having [native] name of the Mother of God, Holy Mary, instead of Tonantzin, but Dios inantzin. It appears to be a Satanic invention to cloak idolatry under the confusion of this name, Tonantzin.

Sahagún's criticism of the indigenous group seems to have stemmed primarily from his concern about a syncretistic application of the native name Tonantzin to the Catholic Virgin Mary. However, Sahagún often used the same name in his sermons as late as the 1560s.

In the 16th century and probably continuing into the early 17th century, the image was modified by then adding the mandorla-shaped sunburst around the Virgin, the stars on her cloak, the moon under her feet, and the angel with a folded cloth supporting her — as was determined by an infrared and ocular study of the tilma in 1979.[


I can't reach a judgment either way on Guadalupe. Fatima is interesting since most people saw something; but some people didn't see anything.
That tells me it was probably more a vision rather than physical events. http://johnhaffert.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Meet-the-Witnesses-91511.pdf#page=90 -- has several eyewitness accounts. The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun

Not everyone reported the same thing; some present claimed they saw the sun dance around the heavens; others said the sun zoomed toward Earth in a zigzag motion that caused them to fear that it might collide with our planet (or, more likely, burn it up). Some people reported seeing brilliant colors spin out of the sun in a psychedelic, pinwheel pattern, and thousands of others present didn't see anything unusual at all.

That's what I'd expect. I don't think Jesus appeared to anyone except his followers after the resurrection. Some things are not meant for the eyes of everyone. I've no doubt Mother Mary could have appeared in a solid physical body if she wanted and made things happen in the physical world; but I think it was more a vision of a spiritual reality for sincere believers. I'd expect accounts to differ slightly if it was a vision, since even prophets have to develop their gift of spiritual sight as you can see in Jeremiah 1. For me, the fact that there are slight differences validates the apparition rather than undermine it. People are different and their minds are different; so when the prophetic occurs, it is colored by the people's mind. Each person has a uniqueness that God values. When to get suspicious is when too many people say the exact same thing as they did in 1 Kings 22. The prophetic does not come with exact words like that. It comes as an idea that the mind then translates into human words or pictures.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are the one saying the Catholic Church is not going to change for nothing or nobody!
I guess you do not watch the news?
Like i said you are not a good defender of the Church.
Why should the Body of Christ “change” for anybody??
The change must come from the individual – not the Church.

If a priest sins – HE needs to change – not the Church. The same is true for every Protestant minister.
You have bizarre ideas about what the Church is . . .
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Why should the Body of Christ “change” for anybody??
The change must come from the individual – not the Church.

If a priest sins – HE needs to change – not the Church. The same is true for every Protestant minister.
You have bizarre ideas about what the Church is . . .

What you are proposing is that the Catholic Church is dead in Christ and cannot learn anything further or correct past errors. Perfection does not exist for anything that has the hand of Man involved with it. The Vatican is its own worst enemy with this. If you want to go over all the horrors that the Vatican's lust for power and precepts that it was infallible caused we can do that. It will take about 35 posts, I can copy it right in. You are thinking I am bashing the Catholics....you are wrong! But I am also saying if they do not make some changes, very quickly, it is going to go bad for them and I do not want to see that happen. You can stick your head in sand and pretend that everything is ok, but it is not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GodsGrace

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
Hello GG,
Do you think Kings converting from pagans and joining the Church was a bad idea?
Hmm... Rise of Europe's power, prosperity, righteousness, justice, honour, education... The Gospel and Christian values taken to the ends of the Earth ....

And what since countries have turned their backs on the Church.. Rebellions, wars, the rise of Babylon, and the degeneration of righeteousness, morality and honour..,

Peace!
Here's what I think:
The REFORMATION caused, I think, millions of deaths. (I'd have to check that).
Catholic Kings only was OK.
Now we had Protestant kings too and the wars raged and many died.

This was the 16th century.

In more modern times, the time of VAT I, which was the question, the wars had stopped and the countries were pretty much settled (not really till WWII), but what was happening in the 16th century had ended.

The Council of Trent caused a lot of the education in Europe to flourish because it stated that priests had to become educated and as a result of this many good schools were started which did not exist before and this contributed to the knowledge of normal persons that could get to a school - not all could of course.

In the 1800's the church had a lot of power in Europe. I just don't think the church should be involved in government. Some Princes' up in Northern Italy were engaged in leading their regions with bishops -- this caused a lot of corruption and people learned not to like or trust the church. Some old timers still have this feeling today.

Also, the church having too much political power caused the inquisition to take place.
Corrupt persons, sin-laden persons caused much hatred for the church.

I think you, or I, are speaking about different periods and different methods for the church to operate.

NOW,,,since the post-modern era,,,the church is in trouble,,,morality is slipping,,and everything you say is true.

But, listen, as least we can't hate the church for it, but instead look to it for guidance.
And, although this pope does have me worried, I do believe that, until now, the CC has held firm when other churches have given in to the modern way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grailhunter

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
What you are proposing is that the Catholic Church is dead in Christ and cannot learn anything further or correct past errors. Perfection does not exist for anything that has the hand of Man involved with it. The Vatican is it own worst enemy with this. If you want to go over all the horrors that the Vatican's lust for power and precepts that it was infallible caused we can do that. It will take about 35 posts, I can copy it right in. You are thinking I am bashing the Catholics....you are wrong! But I am also saying if they do not make some changes, very quickly, it is going to go bad for them and I do not want to see that happen. You can stick your head in sand and pretend that everything is ok, but it is not.
Hi GH,
Just ran across this...
You're right of course.
BoL sees everything as an attack.
The CC is not so sure anymore that this pope is infallible....
He's thinking of creating a man-made permanent synod, which, basically, means HE would be the authority for the church and not the magesterum.

But, yes, I agree, anything man gets involved in will go badly in some way or other.
BoL can't tell the difference between his friends and his enemies. Maybe he just likes to argue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grailhunter

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What you are proposing is that the Catholic Church is dead in Christ and cannot learn anything further or correct past errors. Perfection does not exist for anything that has the hand of Man involved with it. The Vatican is it own worst enemy with this. If you want to go over all the horrors that the Vatican's lust for power and precepts that it was infallible caused we can do that. It will take about 35 posts, I can copy it right in. You are thinking I am bashing the Catholics....you are wrong! But I am also saying if they do not make some changes, very quickly, it is going to go bad for them and I do not want to see that happen. You can stick your head in sand and pretend that everything is ok, but it is not.
Once again – INDIVIDUALS are responsible for their INDIVIDUAL sins.

If there were bad Popes – and there wereTHEY will be judged for it. It’s not the fault of the Body of Christ if a person sins. It’s the fault of the individual.

For example – if YOUR pastor molests several of the children in Sunday school or absconds with the church funds – WHOSE fault is it? Is it YOUR fault – or HIS?

As for the hierarchy of the Church not changing their behavior over the centuries – you are LYING if you say they haven’t.
And if you want to compare atrocities between Catholics and Protestants - I'll take that challenge ANY day because there is PLENTY of blame to go around . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi GH,
Just ran across this...
You're right of course.
BoL sees everything as an attack.
The CC is not so sure anymore that this pope is infallible....
He's thinking of creating a man-made permanent synod, which, basically, means HE would be the authority for the church and not the magesterum.

But, yes, I agree, anything man gets involved in will go badly in some way or other.
BoL can't tell the difference between his friends and his enemies. Maybe he just likes to argue.
No – I just don’t have any tolerance for fraudulent posters who post under the guise of being “knowledgeable” of the Catholic Church – when they are more ignorant than most.

Your posts pertaining to the Catholic church are almost as comical as they are dishonest . . .
 

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy
No – I just don’t have any tolerance for fraudulent posters who post under the guise of being “knowledgeable” of the Catholic Church – when they are more ignorant than most.

Your posts pertaining to the Catholic church are almost as comical as they are dishonest . . .
Catch up on the news out of the Vatican....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grailhunter

GodsGrace

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2017
10,727
5,716
113
Tuscany
Faith
Christian
Country
Italy

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi GH,
Just ran across this...
You're right of course.
BoL sees everything as an attack.
The CC is not so sure anymore that this pope is infallible....
He's thinking of creating a man-made permanent synod, which, basically, means HE would be the authority for the church and not the magesterum.

But, yes, I agree, anything man gets involved in will go badly in some way or other.
BoL can't tell the difference between his friends and his enemies. Maybe he just likes to argue.


I am not expecting to get along with BOL. And as you know I love the Catholics and agree with much of what you believe in. The Catholic church is like the Tower of Pisa, it was built on the principle foundation of infallibility and bad doctrines....and as they built it, they believed that they could not make corrections. So they have to defend their errors. And yes I do believe and hope the Catholic Church will change for the better. God Bless
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Scroll back. I was talking about miracles, not abuses. You are the one that questioned why bishops don't have instant built in miracle detectors, and I tried to explain why investigations are necessary. It doesn't mean bishops have no discernment. They have rules they must follow. Miracles occur strictly by the grace of God, not the Church. When the best medical science available says there is no explanation for something, it means nothing to those who refuse to believe, but miracles serve to affirm my faith in God, not the Church. You know as well as anybody with 2 functioning brain cells knows what would happen if the Church approved a miracle that later science proved it to be fake. (in this century, not the middle ages)The Church has learned a thing or two over the past 2000 years.
How did the fakes get by then? Make no mistake about this, today the big problem in this area is with some Protestant churches; and over a decade or so, they lose their congregations. Then another one pops up. In mega-churches, there's not much in oversight, so all kinds of frauds and abuses can go on.

It seems to me that bishops should have both common sense and spiritual discernment. I've been in some Protestant church services where I experienced what I can only describe as demonic. The people there would have described it as the Holy Spirit, but it creeped me out. Still it was a palpable presence. It seems to me that if a relic is indeed holy, someone who is holy himself should experience the Spirit bearing witness to the Spirit. A bishop should be able to tell when people are lying to him or confused. I think a bishop should depend first of all on his spiritual insight; and that doesn't ring alarm bells, then let science take over.
I care very much. The protocol for investigations into miracles is extremely rigorous, to rule out superstition, to prove it was from God. That's good enough for me, but never good enough for those who refuse to believe.
Care also needs to be taken to rule out "lying signs and wonders." I've seen miracles I am 100% sure were not from God. While that is rare, I think, in Catholic circles, it is possible.
And I explained FOUR TIMES that doctrine does not evolve, it develops. The reason doctrine develops is BECAUSE of the heretics. Scripture alone was not enough, because the heretics were going by scripture alone. That's why councils were convened. Trinitarian theology HAD to develop, (which is accepted by most Christians) to give greater clarity to the Scriptures. Development of doctrine is deep stuff, it's not for baby Christians, and is almost absent in Protestantism. So it has to be explained over and over again.

The Catholic Church would say there was one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the Apostles, and there’s been no change in that, in terms of essence or substance; so the Catholic Church preserves that, and is the Guardian of it. But, on the other hand, there is a growth in depth of clarity, in the understanding of those truths, without essential change. In other words, the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. That’s the main distinction to keep in mind when one is talking about development.​
Overview of Development of Doctrine (TV Interview)
You are fixed on using erroneous terms like "change" and "evolve".
We might as well stop discussing this since you aren't going to convince me, nor me you.
To you, it means "once and for all delivered unto the saints of 33 A.D." To me, it means " the faith once before delivered to the saints by the Apostles that is timeless". I contend that the same faith has not changed in it's essence. Furthermore, Jude 1:3 is a verse, not a doctrine, so it is irrelevant to development, but relevant to infallibility, which apparently you cannot, or will not, comprehend.

"...Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture (“progressive revelation”). Examples: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc.
I know how Jews did things in the Sanhedrin. They never created the problems for themselves that Catholics have created for themselves.

What you call progressive revelation would be fine with me if it was retained separately from the original deposit and made optional for people to believe. I do believe in progressive revelation, but I also believe in preserving the original deposit as the separate and necessary set of beliefs.
Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.
There is one that has always been true; and it's up to each individual to learn how to obey the two commandments: Love God and love your neighbor. That is all the Law and the Prophets. It is the everlasting Gospel too. That principle is also well known in many other religions. The doctrine is simple then: God is Love and He wants us to be loving too. The rest is "explanation" as a famous rabbi put it.

On One Foot

One famous account in the Talmud (Shabbat 31a) tells about a gentile who wanted to convert to Judaism. This happened not infrequently, and this individual stated that he would accept Judaism only if a rabbi would teach him the entire Torah while he, the prospective convert, stood on one foot. First he went to Shammai, who, insulted by this ridiculous request, threw him out of the house. The man did not give up and went to Hillel. This gentle sage accepted the challenge, and said:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this—go and study it!"


 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Once again – INDIVIDUALS are responsible for their INDIVIDUAL sins.

If there were bad Popes – and there wereTHEY will be judged for it. It’s not the fault of the Body of Christ if a person sins. It’s the fault of the individual.

For example – if YOUR pastor molests several of the children in Sunday school or absconds with the church funds – WHOSE fault is it? Is it YOUR fault – or HIS?

As for the hierarchy of the Church not changing their behavior over the centuries – you are LYING if you say they haven’t.
And if you want to compare atrocities between Catholics and Protestants - I'll take that challenge ANY day because there is PLENTY of blame to go around . . .


As for the hierarchy of the Church not changing their behavior over the centuries – you are LYING if you say they haven’t.
And if you want to compare atrocities between Catholics and Protestants - I'll take that challenge ANY day because there is PLENTY of blame to go around . . .


lol In that comparison you will loose! The horrors of the Catholic Church are many, the lust for power is historical, and the desire for belief control is evident. The Protestants never had the power to do the atrocities that the Catholic Church committed. I am well prepared for that challenge but some of that language would be too horrific for the good people on this forum. The past is the past and as I said the Catholic Church needs to change now! My point about molesting children and or women, it does not matter if it is Catholic church or the Protestant church, they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and imprisoned. Because it is so public and frequent on the news, and so much is at stake, the Catholic Church needs to make it clear, and with transparency to the public, that they are moving on this in a strict and swift manner. I understand they are investigating, but because it has come to this, those investigations and actions should be open to the public. I say that for the benefit of the Catholic Church. Time heals all wounds, but this one is going to take awhile so they need to act now! No more defense! No more excuses! No pointing at the other guy! The eyes of the world are on the Catholic Church and they need to do the right thing now!
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I am not expecting to get along with BOL. And as you know I love the Catholics and agree with much of what you believe in. The Catholic church is like the Tower of Pisa, it was built on the principle foundation of infallibility and bad doctrines....and as they built it, they believed that they could not make corrections. So they have to defend their errors. And yes I do believe and hope the Catholic Church will change for the better. God Bless
I wish they had followed the example of the Sanhedrin which did not rule on doctrines. People of various sects could sit together and make decisions about practices. They did not vote on doctrines. Each person was free to believe as he wished. He was however obliged to obey the rulings of the Sanhedrin. If it said the wall on your roof had to be so high, that's how high you had to make it. Of course, Jews also studied the Torah too. Where's the love in that commandment? It's one of the obvious laws. If you love others and live part of the time on your roof, you want a wall to prevent people from falling, injuring or killing themselves. If you wrote that on your heart, you'd also do other things by using common sense. Today it could mean putting a fence around your swimming pool so small children and drunks don't wander onto your property and drown. People who didn't have lots of time could be told what they should do in practical terms; and if they did those things, it would be counted as "righteousness" for them even if they didn't understand the real purpose of the laws. Jews know they don't fully understand the Torah, so they rely on the rulings of their leaders while they're studying.

Of course, the Jews did debate theology; and we have records of some of the most famous debates. What both sides said is written down, and then the reader is left to decide who was right and who was wrong.

The Catholic Church misunderstood this passage:

Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

The Catholic Church took that and made it about doctrines. They were not content to let people struggle on their own about spiritual truths in a way that they could become contented with their beliefs, convinced they actually knew things. The Catholic Church fell into the trap that people could never know the truth for themselves. They had to be told what to believe.

I don't enjoy saying it; but there surely are Catholics today who know they don't know but who operate on the premise that they never can know for sure, so they need to adopt all the doctrines of the Catholic Church without hesitation or questioning. You can spot this kind of thinking rather easily -- people start getting upset when their beliefs are challenged and they know they don't really know. They seem to think they'd feel better about things if everyone else agreed with them. It's a common phenomenon, really. It's the reason "crazy"people are annoying to many people. If a crazy person says there's a witch up his chimney, many people aren't that sure about reality themselves -- what if there really is a witch up his chimney? So they overreact, and the urge is to lock them up because they challenge the usual view of reality.

By no means is that a problem unique to Catholics either. Protestants also have their cherished beliefs; and sometimes they believe their salvation depends on holding certain ideas. To doubt would be to risk damnation.

I find it odd to believe salvation is found by having "right" doctrines. For me, a doctrine is useful only if it's helping me love God or my neighbor better, if it's helping me become a better person and possibly making the world a little bit better.

The Catholic Church has created big barriers for others to reconcile with them. When the schism with the Orthodox looked permanent, Catholics gave up on reconciliation and made decisions about this and that doctrine, saying they were necessary for salvation. How can the Orthodox reconcile when the Catholics made some doctrines official that the Orthodox could never accept? The more doctrines they deemed necessary for salvation, the more difficult they made it for others to reconcile. Claiming to be inerrant in such things meant they couldn't change their minds, not even if they wanted to since that would undermine the claim of being inerrant. They boxed themselves in, if you ask me.
 

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The Miracle of Lanciano seems inappropriate to me since it sends what I think is a wrong message. The real miracle is that what looks like ordinary bread and wine is changed spiritually. Saying that can be changed into ordinary flesh and blood seems contrary to that.

Guadalupe was controversial for a long time. I'll cite Wikipedia which gives its sources if you're interested.

Our Lady of Guadalupe - Wikipedia

A more complete early description of the apparition occurs in a 16-page manuscript called the Nican mopohua, which was acquired by the New York Public Library in 1880, and has been reliably dated in 1556. This document, written in Nahuatl, but in Latin script, tells the story of the apparitions and the supernatural origin of the image. It was probably composed by a native Aztec man, called Antonio Valeriano, who had been educated by Franciscans. The text of this document was later incorporated into a printed pamphlet which was widely circulated in 1649.
In spite of these documents, there are no written accounts of the Guadalupe vision by Catholic clergymen of the 16th century, as there ought to have been if the event had the Christian importance it is claimed to have had. In particular, the canonical account of the vision also features archbishop Juan de Zumárraga as a major player in the story, but, although Zumárraga was a prolific writer, there is nothing in his extant writings that can confirm the indigenous story.

The written record that does exist suggests the Catholic clergy in 16th century Mexico were deeply divided as to the orthodoxy of the native beliefs springing up around the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, with the Franciscan order (who then had custody of the chapel at Tepeyac) being strongly opposed to the outside groups, while the Dominicans supported it.

The main promoter of the story and those native believers was the Dominican Alonso de Montúfar, who succeeded the Franciscan Juan de Zumárraga as archbishop of Mexico. In a 1556 sermon Montúfar commended popular devotion to "Our Lady of Guadalupe," referring to a painting on cloth (the tilma) in the chapel of the Virgin Mary at Tepeyac, where certain miracles had also occurred. Days later, Fray Francisco de Bustamante, local head of the Franciscan order, delivered a sermon denouncing the native belief and believers. He expressed concern that the Catholic Archbishop was promoting a superstitious regard for an indigenous image:

The devotion at the chapel ... to which they have given the name Guadalupe was prejudicial to the Indians because they believed that the image itself worked miracles, contrary to what the missionary friars had been teaching them, and because many were disappointed when it did not.
The banner of the Mexican conquistador Hernan Cortes from year 1521, which was kept within the Archbishop's villa during the time of the Guadalupe apparitions.
The next day Archbishop Montúfar opened an inquiry into the matter. At the inquiry, the Franciscans repeated their position that the image encouraged idolatry and superstition, and four witnesses testified to Bustamante's claim that the image was painted by an Indian, with one witness naming him "the Indian painter Marcos". This could refer to the Aztec painter Marcos Cipac de Aquino, who was active at that time. But "if he did, he apparently did so without making a preliminary sketches – in itself then seen as a near-miraculous procedure.... Cipac may well have had a hand in painting the Image, but only in painting the additions, such as the angel and moon at the Virgin's feet", claims Prof. Jody Brant Smith (referring to Philip Serna Callahan's examination of the tilma using infrared photography in 1979).

Ultimately Archbishop Montúfar (himself a Dominican) decided to end Franciscan custody of the shrine. From then on the shrine was kept and served by diocesan priests under the authority of the archbishop. Moreover, Archbishop Montúfar authorized the construction of a much larger church at Tepeyac, in which the tilma was later mounted and displayed.

The report of this 1556 inquiry is the most extensive documentation concerning the Virgin of Guadalupe from the 16th century, and significantly, it makes no mention of Juan Diego, the miraculous apparition, or any other element from the legend.

In the late 1570s, the Franciscan historian Bernardino de Sahagún denounced the cult at Tepeyac and the use of the name "Tonantzin" or to call her Our Lady in a personal digression in his General History of the Things of New Spain, in the version known as the Florentine Codex.

At this place [Tepeyac], [the Indians] had a temple dedicated to the mother of the gods, whom they called Tonantzin, which means Our Mother. There they performed many sacrifices in honor of this goddess ... And now that a church of Our Lady of Guadalupe is built there, they also called her Tonantzin, being motivated by those preachers who called Our Lady, the Mother of God, Tonantzin. While it is not known for certain where the beginning of Tonantzin may have originated, but this we know for certain, that, from its first usage, the word refers to the ancient Tonantzin. And it was viewed as something that should be remedied, for their having [native] name of the Mother of God, Holy Mary, instead of Tonantzin, but Dios inantzin. It appears to be a Satanic invention to cloak idolatry under the confusion of this name, Tonantzin.

Sahagún's criticism of the indigenous group seems to have stemmed primarily from his concern about a syncretistic application of the native name Tonantzin to the Catholic Virgin Mary. However, Sahagún often used the same name in his sermons as late as the 1560s.

In the 16th century and probably continuing into the early 17th century, the image was modified by then adding the mandorla-shaped sunburst around the Virgin, the stars on her cloak, the moon under her feet, and the angel with a folded cloth supporting her — as was determined by an infrared and ocular study of the tilma in 1979.[


I can't reach a judgment either way on Guadalupe. Fatima is interesting since most people saw something; but some people didn't see anything.
That tells me it was probably more a vision rather than physical events. http://johnhaffert.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Meet-the-Witnesses-91511.pdf#page=90 -- has several eyewitness accounts. The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun

Not everyone reported the same thing; some present claimed they saw the sun dance around the heavens; others said the sun zoomed toward Earth in a zigzag motion that caused them to fear that it might collide with our planet (or, more likely, burn it up). Some people reported seeing brilliant colors spin out of the sun in a psychedelic, pinwheel pattern, and thousands of others present didn't see anything unusual at all.

That's what I'd expect. I don't think Jesus appeared to anyone except his followers after the resurrection. Some things are not meant for the eyes of everyone. I've no doubt Mother Mary could have appeared in a solid physical body if she wanted and made things happen in the physical world; but I think it was more a vision of a spiritual reality for sincere believers. I'd expect accounts to differ slightly if it was a vision, since even prophets have to develop their gift of spiritual sight as you can see in Jeremiah 1. For me, the fact that there are slight differences validates the apparition rather than undermine it. People are different and their minds are different; so when the prophetic occurs, it is colored by the people's mind. Each person has a uniqueness that God values. When to get suspicious is when too many people say the exact same thing as they did in 1 Kings 22. The prophetic does not come with exact words like that. It comes as an idea that the mind then translates into human words or pictures.
The temperature of the tilma is a constant 98.6 F., regardless of the temperature of the church it is in. Why does Wikipedia not mention this? A lie by omission?
The Catholic Church is the authority on the Catholic Church, not Wikipedia.
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions – not always so “biblical” – which preclude development for fear of “excess.”

The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its Canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.!..."

That was a decision binding only on parts of Africa. Not everyone had all the books early on; and as time went by, bishops often consulted with other bishops about books to get their opinions. I think that worked just fine. Indeed, I think the Catholic Church did not need to react to the Protestants about it by making their own list. They already knew what books they accepted. They didn't need an Ecumenical Council to tell them.
Local synods were working just fine. Up to the Council of Trent, I admire generally how the Catholic Church behaved in the matter. Those books were the result of Tradition. Why was it necessary then for the Council of Trent to say anything?
You will fail to understand as long as you stubbornly refuse to distinguish the different between development and change. I can only do so much.
Development of trinitarian theology is the simplest most direct example that I could think of.
The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325, (not changed) and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed (not changed) in 451. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies.
We won't progress in this.
"things science can't disprove" has nothing to do with infallibility, and the Pope can only speak infallibly on faith and morals. Not everything the Pope says is infallible.
Something that can't be proved is not that valuable to me. While I don't demand "scientific" proof in spiritual things, there are ways of determining some things in the spiritual realm when people have spiritual eyes and ears.
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The temperature of the tilma is a constant 98.6 F., regardless of the temperature of the church it is in. Why does Wikipedia not mention this? A lie by omission?
I don't know. Perhaps no non-Catholic scientist ever verified the claim? Do you know of any unbiased investigation about this?
The Catholic Church is the authority on the Catholic Church, not Wikipedia.
That kind of thinking reminds me Protestants who won't leave their mega-churches no matter what. They want to believe in their ministers and often do until the evidence becomes too overwhelming to ignore.

That kind of thinking also led to the European banking system canceling its financial ties to the Vatican over its secretive banking practices. Nothing would work to get the Vatican to comply until they discovered the credit cards of pilgrims weren't working anymore.

That kind of thinking also contributed to how many other things got swept under the rug until governments took action.

That kind of thinking arouses suspicion in non-Catholics.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@BreadOfLife

I didn't even read this.
But WHEN this happens...
The Pope will have everyone on HIS side in the synod...
and HE will become the supreme authority...
No more magesterum.

You're so far behind on the news...
You just don't know what's going on in the CC....

So sad.

'Blogging' Archbishop Mark Coleridge: Pope wants to make synodality 'a permanent feature' of the church’s life
This is proof positive that your claim – and your blog link are manure . . .

NO Pope can tell a future Pope how to run the Church – period.

This is the SAME asinine position that the SSPX took with Pius V’s Papal Bull Quo Primum.

In it – Pius V was fed up with Liturgical abuses and ruled that the Tridentine Mass was to be the norm – in “perpetuity”. He certainly understood that he had NO authority to tell a future Pope that he couldn’t make changes to the Mass – like using the vernacular languages. As you know – this happened at the 2nd Vatican Council – and rightly so.

YOU are using the same ignorant logic to say that the current Pope is trying to “change” the way the Church is run – for FUTURE Popes.

He can’t do that – and ANYBODY who truly knows what they’re talking about should KNOW this.

But, then again – you don’t know what you’re talking about . . .
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I wish they had followed the example of the Sanhedrin which did not rule on doctrines. People of various sects could sit together and make decisions about practices. They did not vote on doctrines. Each person was free to believe as he wished. He was however obliged to obey the rulings of the Sanhedrin. If it said the wall on your roof had to be so high, that's how high you had to make it. Of course, Jews also studied the Torah too. Where's the love in that commandment? It's one of the obvious laws. If you love others and live part of the time on your roof, you want a wall to prevent people from falling, injuring or killing themselves. If you wrote that on your heart, you'd also do other things by using common sense. Today it could mean putting a fence around your swimming pool so small children and drunks don't wander onto your property and drown. People who didn't have lots of time could be told what they should do in practical terms; and if they did those things, it would be counted as "righteousness" for them even if they didn't understand the real purpose of the laws. Jews know they don't fully understand the Torah, so they rely on the rulings of their leaders while they're studying.

Of course, the Jews did debate theology; and we have records of some of the most famous debates. What both sides said is written down, and then the reader is left to decide who was right and who was wrong.

The Catholic Church misunderstood this passage:

Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

The Catholic Church took that and made it about doctrines. They were not content to let people struggle on their own about spiritual truths in a way that they could become contented with their beliefs, convinced they actually knew things. The Catholic Church fell into the trap that people could never know the truth for themselves. They had to be told what to believe.

I don't enjoy saying it; but there surely are Catholics today who know they don't know but who operate on the premise that they never can know for sure, so they need to adopt all the doctrines of the Catholic Church without hesitation or questioning. You can spot this kind of thinking rather easily -- people start getting upset when their beliefs are challenged and they know they don't really know. They seem to think they'd feel better about things if everyone else agreed with them. It's a common phenomenon, really. It's the reason "crazy"people are annoying to many people. If a crazy person says there's a witch up his chimney, many people aren't that sure about reality themselves -- what if there really is a witch up his chimney? So they overreact, and the urge is to lock them up because they challenge the usual view of reality.

By no means is that a problem unique to Catholics either. Protestants also have their cherished beliefs; and sometimes they believe their salvation depends on holding certain ideas. To doubt would be to risk damnation.

I find it odd to believe salvation is found by having "right" doctrines. For me, a doctrine is useful only if it's helping me love God or my neighbor better, if it's helping me become a better person and possibly making the world a little bit better.

The Catholic Church has created big barriers for others to reconcile with them. When the schism with the Orthodox looked permanent, Catholics gave up on reconciliation and made decisions about this and that doctrine, saying they were necessary for salvation. How can the Orthodox reconcile when the Catholics made some doctrines official that the Orthodox could never accept? The more doctrines they deemed necessary for salvation, the more difficult they made it for others to reconcile. Claiming to be inerrant in such things meant they couldn't change their minds, not even if they wanted to since that would undermine the claim of being inerrant. They boxed themselves in, if you ask me.

You are right buddy O' pal but you also know that this topic runs deep. Christ knew what was happening and where it was leading. All that is written in the Gospels reflect Him talking to different people, sometime from their perspectives, talking to Jews about Judaism, and sometimes talking to them about the New Covenant that was to come, and sometimes talking to mixed multitudes...and sometime even making comments out of frustration. But the problem is that people will try to make it all Christian beliefs, that is one of the ways that Christian beliefs get mixed up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Giuliano

epostle

Well-Known Member
Jun 21, 2018
859
289
63
72
essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The Miracle of Lanciano seems inappropriate to me since it sends what I think is a wrong message. The real miracle is that what looks like ordinary bread and wine is changed spiritually. Saying that can be changed into ordinary flesh and blood seems contrary to that.

Guadalupe was controversial for a long time. I'll cite Wikipedia which gives its sources if you're interested.

Our Lady of Guadalupe - Wikipedia

A more complete early description of the apparition occurs in a 16-page manuscript called the Nican mopohua, which was acquired by the New York Public Library in 1880, and has been reliably dated in 1556. This document, written in Nahuatl, but in Latin script, tells the story of the apparitions and the supernatural origin of the image. It was probably composed by a native Aztec man, called Antonio Valeriano, who had been educated by Franciscans. The text of this document was later incorporated into a printed pamphlet which was widely circulated in 1649.
In spite of these documents, there are no written accounts of the Guadalupe vision by Catholic clergymen of the 16th century, as there ought to have been if the event had the Christian importance it is claimed to have had. In particular, the canonical account of the vision also features archbishop Juan de Zumárraga as a major player in the story, but, although Zumárraga was a prolific writer, there is nothing in his extant writings that can confirm the indigenous story.

The written record that does exist suggests the Catholic clergy in 16th century Mexico were deeply divided as to the orthodoxy of the native beliefs springing up around the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, with the Franciscan order (who then had custody of the chapel at Tepeyac) being strongly opposed to the outside groups, while the Dominicans supported it.

The main promoter of the story and those native believers was the Dominican Alonso de Montúfar, who succeeded the Franciscan Juan de Zumárraga as archbishop of Mexico. In a 1556 sermon Montúfar commended popular devotion to "Our Lady of Guadalupe," referring to a painting on cloth (the tilma) in the chapel of the Virgin Mary at Tepeyac, where certain miracles had also occurred. Days later, Fray Francisco de Bustamante, local head of the Franciscan order, delivered a sermon denouncing the native belief and believers. He expressed concern that the Catholic Archbishop was promoting a superstitious regard for an indigenous image:

The devotion at the chapel ... to which they have given the name Guadalupe was prejudicial to the Indians because they believed that the image itself worked miracles, contrary to what the missionary friars had been teaching them, and because many were disappointed when it did not.
The banner of the Mexican conquistador Hernan Cortes from year 1521, which was kept within the Archbishop's villa during the time of the Guadalupe apparitions.
The next day Archbishop Montúfar opened an inquiry into the matter. At the inquiry, the Franciscans repeated their position that the image encouraged idolatry and superstition, and four witnesses testified to Bustamante's claim that the image was painted by an Indian, with one witness naming him "the Indian painter Marcos". This could refer to the Aztec painter Marcos Cipac de Aquino, who was active at that time. But "if he did, he apparently did so without making a preliminary sketches – in itself then seen as a near-miraculous procedure.... Cipac may well have had a hand in painting the Image, but only in painting the additions, such as the angel and moon at the Virgin's feet", claims Prof. Jody Brant Smith (referring to Philip Serna Callahan's examination of the tilma using infrared photography in 1979).

Ultimately Archbishop Montúfar (himself a Dominican) decided to end Franciscan custody of the shrine. From then on the shrine was kept and served by diocesan priests under the authority of the archbishop. Moreover, Archbishop Montúfar authorized the construction of a much larger church at Tepeyac, in which the tilma was later mounted and displayed.

The report of this 1556 inquiry is the most extensive documentation concerning the Virgin of Guadalupe from the 16th century, and significantly, it makes no mention of Juan Diego, the miraculous apparition, or any other element from the legend.

In the late 1570s, the Franciscan historian Bernardino de Sahagún denounced the cult at Tepeyac and the use of the name "Tonantzin" or to call her Our Lady in a personal digression in his General History of the Things of New Spain, in the version known as the Florentine Codex.

At this place [Tepeyac], [the Indians] had a temple dedicated to the mother of the gods, whom they called Tonantzin, which means Our Mother. There they performed many sacrifices in honor of this goddess ... And now that a church of Our Lady of Guadalupe is built there, they also called her Tonantzin, being motivated by those preachers who called Our Lady, the Mother of God, Tonantzin. While it is not known for certain where the beginning of Tonantzin may have originated, but this we know for certain, that, from its first usage, the word refers to the ancient Tonantzin. And it was viewed as something that should be remedied, for their having [native] name of the Mother of God, Holy Mary, instead of Tonantzin, but Dios inantzin. It appears to be a Satanic invention to cloak idolatry under the confusion of this name, Tonantzin.

Sahagún's criticism of the indigenous group seems to have stemmed primarily from his concern about a syncretistic application of the native name Tonantzin to the Catholic Virgin Mary. However, Sahagún often used the same name in his sermons as late as the 1560s.

In the 16th century and probably continuing into the early 17th century, the image was modified by then adding the mandorla-shaped sunburst around the Virgin, the stars on her cloak, the moon under her feet, and the angel with a folded cloth supporting her — as was determined by an infrared and ocular study of the tilma in 1979.[


I can't reach a judgment either way on Guadalupe. Fatima is interesting since most people saw something; but some people didn't see anything.
That tells me it was probably more a vision rather than physical events. http://johnhaffert.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Meet-the-Witnesses-91511.pdf#page=90 -- has several eyewitness accounts. The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun

Not everyone reported the same thing; some present claimed they saw the sun dance around the heavens; others said the sun zoomed toward Earth in a zigzag motion that caused them to fear that it might collide with our planet (or, more likely, burn it up). Some people reported seeing brilliant colors spin out of the sun in a psychedelic, pinwheel pattern, and thousands of others present didn't see anything unusual at all.

That's what I'd expect. I don't think Jesus appeared to anyone except his followers after the resurrection. Some things are not meant for the eyes of everyone. I've no doubt Mother Mary could have appeared in a solid physical body if she wanted and made things happen in the physical world; but I think it was more a vision of a spiritual reality for sincere believers. I'd expect accounts to differ slightly if it was a vision, since even prophets have to develop their gift of spiritual sight as you can see in Jeremiah 1. For me, the fact that there are slight differences validates the apparition rather than undermine it. People are different and their minds are different; so when the prophetic occurs, it is colored by the people's mind. Each person has a uniqueness that God values. When to get suspicious is when too many people say the exact same thing as they did in 1 Kings 22. The prophetic does not come with exact words like that. It comes as an idea that the mind then translates into human words or pictures.
Visionaries and Visions/Mysticism
— Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Visionaries and Visions

Our focus here is on the widespread phenomena in the modern world, especially in the Catholic Church since the middle of the present century: so many mystics and revelations, so many locutions and apparitions reported in our day that someone had better evaluate these experiences from an authentically Catholic perspective.​
 

Giuliano

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2019
5,978
3,676
113
Carlisle
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Visionaries and Visions/Mysticism
— Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Visionaries and Visions

Our focus here is on the widespread phenomena in the modern world, especially in the Catholic Church since the middle of the present century: so many mystics and revelations, so many locutions and apparitions reported in our day that someone had better evaluate these experiences from an authentically Catholic perspective.​
A basic norm for identifying an authentic revelation is its full consistency with the Catholic faith. This consistency does not, of course, prove that the revelation is supernatural. It does, however, indicate whether what is supposedly revealed is credible. God never contradicts Himself.

The Catholic position begins with the assumption it's always right. There is no way of correcting past errors. Spiritually awakened men and women could not correct anything since the teaching is the "educated" people who are spiritually blind in hierarchy are always right. It's the blind leading the blind to me. Nobody knows anything from firsthand experience; everything is accepted on trust in the system.