Posted on 02/19/2010 11:32:44 PM PST by bogusname
THE LADY OF FATIMA- Introduction Some Roman Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Christ, has actually appeared to people in places like Fatima and Medjugorje. Well, did she?
THE LADY OF FATIMA- Biblical? In evaluating the alleged appearances of Mary, our primary concern would be to determine whether these apparitions are indeed biblical. Interestingly enough, these “Marian apparitions” (as they are commonly referred to) are inextricably woven together with the official Catholic teachings about Mary which, by the way, is known as Mariology. In fact, it would be fair to say that Catholic Mariology is the very foundation of Marian apparitions. It’s been well said that a structure is only as solid as its foundation; and in looking at Marian apparitions, we need to examine the integrity of this whole concept referred to as Catholic Mariology.
(Excerpt) Read more at equip.org ...
Martin Luther, Founder of the Reform, Speaks on Mary
In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:
“There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.
The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).
[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).
No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).
One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God’s grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).
Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of “Spiritual Mother” for Christians:
It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)
Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).
Martin Luther had the belief of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Luther’s words follow:
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin” (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).
She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {”Little”} Prayer Book, 1522).
Martin Luther on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
Here are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:
Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}
“. . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her.”
Ref: Luther’s Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968
“. . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God.”
Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther’s Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)
“Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”
(REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther’s Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)
“Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees.” (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)
Commentaries on Luther
“. . . in the resolutions of the 95 theses Luther rejects every blasphemy against the Virgin, and thinks that one should ask for pardon for any evil said or thought against her.” (Ref: Wm. J. Cole, “Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?” in Marian Studies 1970, p. 116:)
“In Luther’s Explanation of the Magnificat in 1521, he begins and ends with an invocation to Mary, which Wright feels compelled to call ‘surprising’”.
(David F. Wright, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspecive, London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, p. 178, Cited from Faith & Reason, Spring 1994, p. 6.)
Martin Luther defends the Eucharist
In 1529 Martin Luther engaged the question of transubstantiation in the famous conference at Marburg with Zwingli and other Swiss theologians; he maintained his view that Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.
Other Reformers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
John Calvin
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:]
The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
Huldreich Zwingli
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}
Heinrich Bullinger
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: ‘In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.’ She is ‘the most unique and the noblest member’ of the Christian community . . .
‘The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.’
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
All thats nice but its the words of men. It is not biblical.
MARY WAS A SINNER LIKE ME! The only thing that sets her apart was she was obedient to God.
Prayer to Mary is wasted breath. No one in the Bible ever prayed to the deceased.
You guys are elevating a normal woman to godhood.
Stop it.
Bro, check out my post #41. Then go do your own research. Not only did Luther defend catholic doctrine about Mary, so did alot of his heretical constituents.
Hang on. You say you were a former catholic? And you don’t know the church teaching on Our Lady?
You weren’t paying much attention.
If you reject catholic teaching, then you are a protestant. Your protestant ‘church fathers’ defended alot of catholic doctrine about Mary.
So, where does that leave you? You disagree with the catholics and the protestant revolters.
“Bro, check out my post #41. Then go do your own research. Not only did Luther defend catholic doctrine about Mary, so did alot of his heretical constituents.”
Post 42 WAS my response to #41.
As to doing my own research, I won’t look farther than my own Bible. If its not in the Bible, Its not true.
Purgatory isn’t in the Bible. Its a fable. false. a lie.
Nowhere is Mary said to be sinless or a perpetual virgin.
and no one has shown me a single verse that shows prayers offered to the deceased.
Mary is a sinner like me. We will see her in heaven because she was obedient to God. She is not a co-redemtrix, she is just my sister in Christ: nothing more.
You catholic apologists need to get some BIBLICAL backing for your arguments. Words of this guy or that mean nothing.
I’ve refrained from pinging Fr. Gruner. His folks in NY23 have managed to join the coalition which includes the SSPX chapel in Potsdam in support of local Methodist Doug Hoffman.
Talk about a fragile coalition that could disintegrate with one false move ...
A personal opinion of brother Martin that isn't substantiated by Scripture so it isn't a part of the Lutheran Confessions. But I personally don't hold it against him since he was a Catholic, just an ingrained habit.
Regarding Real Presence: Confessional Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, not transubstantiation.
I’m sure you’ve heard all this before. You know the catholic church is responsible for you having a bible?
Do you believe in the Trinity? You know the word Trinity is not in the bible?
What did the people do for the first few hundered years when there was no bible?
References to purgatory are in the bible. You believe in the Trinity and that’s not in the bible, yet there are references to the Trinity.
You, in a sense, are a ‘co-redemptor’, you co-operate in the work of redemption. Which Christ sent us out to do. You also, in a sense, are a ‘mediator’ when you agree to pray for other people. What’s the big deal? Just because you don’t understand it, and I’m sure you haven’t researched it, doesn’t mean it’s not biblically based.
And, you know, Luther even expounded on what happens when everybody interprets scripture for themselves, which you have done. How unfortunate, you don’t have the fullness of Christian faith. If you only knew what you were missing.
Are you God?
Having said that, it is possible that at least some of the Medjugorje apparitions - if anything supernatural occurred there at all - are not from God.
Approved apparitions are another matter.
Still not a single Biblical reference in your argument.
Sorry. The Catholics don’t get to just make stuff up out of thin air and call it tradition.
The ONLY truth is in the Bible.
Where is the verse showing people praying to the deceased?
its not there.
Where is the part that tells us Mary was without sin or a virgin after the birth of Jesus?
Its not there. it was just made up. its false. a lie.
Well, that leaves one in somewhat of a pickle doesn’t it? Luther, in his own words and writings, said some pretty catholic things about Mary. As did his heretical brethren. After they left the church.
And now you are saying that it was just one of his/their ‘personal opinions?’ Is that right?
Then Luther was either wrong or he was right. If he was wrong, what else was he/they wrong about? If he was right, where does that leave you?
I give Luther a pass on this because he came from a Catholic school and was taught a lot of heresy in the name of tradition.
Bottom line: YOU can’t show a single Bible verse to promote your argument.
Without scripture your just a wanna be.
I’ll point out the scripture verses. But I notice you are dodging my other points.
What did the people do for several hundred years when there were no bibles?
Do you believe in the Trinity? Trinity is not in the bible.
Without the catholic church, you would have no bible.
He was a Catholic his whole life till then.. Find me the same type of quote AFTER the Lutheran Confessions were published. Doctrine FROM Scripture, you won't.
If he was right, where does that leave you?
Unlike Catholicism that has the opportunity to have doctrine codified by one man, Confessional Lutherans don't, if it isn't in Scripture it can't be doctrinal. God's Word IS right and Truth. I don't have to worry about whether or not Luther himself was infallible in the proposing of doctrine. I have no problem stating that Luther WAS wrong about his Marian views, his later work proved it.
Oh, how nice that you are giving Luther a pass. You know he said those things up until the time he died?
So, was Luther wrong or right?
If he was right, why don’t you believe it? If he was wrong, what else did he get wrong? You can’t have it both ways.
You can’t have it both ways.
Nor can you.
The earliest gospel was Mark, a mere 80 years after Christ.
BUT we have fragments of Mark in letters to and from the various churches from far earlier. A complete gospel of Mark is can be put together from these letters a mere 40 years after Christ. AND fragments exist even earlier.
So the early Christians did NOT rely on “tradition.” they had the Gospel. That is history my friend, not tradition.
My source: Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell. He was an atheist that set out to prove the bible wrong. He ended up converting when the truth could not be ignored.
Now its your turn, show me scripture.
Regarding Real Presence: they say if you search for the truth with your whole heart mind and soul, that you will find it.
But the Bible Answer Man at CRI and his followers don’t give much attention to John chapter 6.
Confessional Lutheranism does not rely on Martin Luther’s personal views, it never has. It has Biblically based doctrine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.