I live in the Diocese of Green Bay, the home Diocese to the Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help.  I had heard bits of the story of this apparition and had even been to the Shrine once when the relics of St. Therese visited there several years ago.  All I know is that this story of Mary’s appearance and her words then are very timely for our Church and nation now:  “Gather the children in this wild country and teach them what they should know for salvation. Teach them their catechism, how to sign themselves with the sign of the cross and how to approach the sacraments. That is what I wish you to do. Go and I will help you.”  Adele Joseph Brise’s calling may very well be our own today.  We thank God for the miracles He has worked through Our Lady of Good Help, and pray that she would continue to lead us closer to her son, Christ the Lord.

</i>Italics off?

What can I do in reparation for spreading devotion to Our Lady of America? I thought it was approved.

Public devotion (or at least some forms of devotion) in connection with Our Lady of America *is* approved.

What is not approved is that the claimed events were of divine origin. That is currently a question that the local bishop has not addressed.

One might thus continue to promote the devotion (if you want) while noting that the apparition itself is not approved.

If you can remember specific people you’ve told or implied for that the apparition itself was approved and you can reasonably and conveniently let them know that this was a step too far then you might let them know that approval of the apparition itself hasn’t happened as of now.

If they have Internet access, you might want to send them a link to this post, just so you don’t have to spend your energy explaining a bunch of technical matters.

In any event, I don’t see the need for any large scale reparation here. The matter is a minor one in the grand scheme of things and you were acting in good conscience.

It is *quite* understandable that people would be confused about this.

If anything, one might suppose that the bishops and the Holy See should be more forceful about explaining the difference so that the faithful *don’t* get the wrong idea.

Thank you Jimmy!

Could someone tell me what the status of the apparitions in Medjugorje is in relation to this formula?

Can someone explain the difference between step 2 and step 3-devotion vs. apparation?  It seems the two are inseperable.  I don’t understand how one could promote the specific devotion apart from its context of the apparition.  Otherwise it would just be general Marian devotion, which would not require the three-step process in the first place.  I’m not seeing how the distinction can be made.

Jyst FYI, it is relatively unknown to many, that an updated translation of the norms recently became available. The one we have been all using was translated from French, which was translated from Latin. We now have a direct Latin to English translation here:

+

http://d-rium.blogspot.com/p/normae-s-congregationis.html

Efren,

Step 2 is “allowing”, not “approving”.  Sort of a ‘watch and wait’ approach.  If I were to paraphrase, I’d say:

1. Find out if something bad is happening.
2. If you don’t find something bad, don’t forbid the devotion.  For now.
3. Eventually, you have to make a final decision.

That’s how I understand it, anyhow.  Someone else will surely correct me if I am mistaken.

Jen.

(And J.A. - Thank you for yet another wonderfully technically-precise explanation of things.  Catechists love you!)

Efren -

You can have a devotion or a new prayer that has an entirely natural origin (like, I sit down at my desk and come up with it). If I supposedly had a vision, and it later turns out that I just had a really vivid daydream, the natural product of my natural imagination can still be as good as if I came up with it at my desk in the normal way.

So unless I’m doing something bad or the devotion is doing something bad, at the approval of devotion stage, the Archbishop of Houston (for example) wouldn’t care how a Houstonian came up with devotion to Our Lady Queen of Astronauts (to pick a name out of the air).

Whether the devotion is natural in origin or not, the archbishop can always take back his approval. If (for example) it turns out that devotion to Our Lady Queen of Astronauts leads to worship of UFO aliens, that would be a bad sign wherever the devotion came from. :)

I would like to address what is raised by J. Thrippleton and Efren. First, the latter.
+

@ Efren - Jimmy’s analysis is spot on. Let’s say that a bishop has informed himself of a situation were large numbers of faithful are gathering for an alleged apparition. He reviews the messages and, thus far, nothing is opposed. He investigates the visionary and nothing is opposed (mental and physical health checks good, she obeys his slightest directive , she is reluctant to broadcast what is coming to her without seeking approval from learned spiritual directors or confessors, and is attempting to go about life in a normal way and is shunning money, gifts and fame). The bishop still does not have the moral certitude that the visions are supernatural and he wants to study it further. With nothing thus far opposed, her permits a cultus to develop, based on this particular apparition. He permits a statue based on the apparition to be erected, allows medals to be stamped, and authorizes a prayer.

+
He, and his successors, will continue to monitor events (further appearances, messages), while also indexing the fruits - first in the visionary and closest associate (spiritual director, confessor, and others close to her), and lastly - the fruits seen in the followers. He looks at both good and bad fruit, as the norms say.

+
Some years down the road, the visions having ceased or the visionary having passed, with nothing opposed, and with miracles he deems credible, he now takes it to the next stage and proclaims by decree, that he has moral certitude that the apparitions themselves were of supernatural origin.

+
Next comment will address Thrippleton’s question

@efren - I want to add something of importance…

+
let’s say that, in the example above, after the bishop permits a cultus based on the alleged apparition, the visionary some months later claims the vision says there are actually four persons in the Trinity. The bishop would have a duty to proclaim by decree, that the apparition is not of supernatural origin. He would then rescind previous permissions which allowed devotions to the thing, and would call for statues, medals and other things to be put away/destroyed etc.

+
It is precisely because of such a scenario that you would never see approval of supernaturally of the visions while ongoing, but a condemnation is always a possibility. Those wo say that no final decision can be made on an apparition do not know enough about the history of apparitions. Those associated with Maureen Sweeney-Kyle (Holy Love), were recently condemned as not supernatural by Bishop Lennon of Cleveland. Those “apparitions” have since been taking jabs at the bishop and diocese - a sure sign they are inauthentic).

@J. Thripplton - Many have a mistaken impression that a cultus was approved. This would mean that it is ok to have devotion to “Our Lady of Medjugorje”, that it would be ok to stamp medals based on that alleged apparition, prayers, hymns, and other things.

+
First, not only was the cultus not approved, it was explicitly prohibited. One of the earlier proofs we have is this:
+

March 25, 1985 (Diocesan Comm. No. 281)

+
In ten days the new statue of the Gospa in front of the main altar ought to be discreetly removed late one evening and replaced by the old one. You must stop talking about apparitions and also cease publicizing messages. The devotions that grew out of the “apparitions” and their messages must be eliminated, sales of souvenirs and printed material which propagate the “apparitions” must also stop.

+
Let’s fast forward to the 1991 Zadar Declaration, which stems from the last Commision. It remains in effect until we hear from the Holy See following the current commission. Does it authorize a cultus? Or, is it merely saying people are free to visit St James, go to Mass, etc?

+
If a cultus had been authorized, pilgrimages would not have been restricted to unofficial, it would have authorized devotion to “Our Lady of Medjugorje”, devotions, statues and medals would have been authorized. Instead, Zadar reminds people of the position that it cannot be affirmed that anything supernatural is involved. It further instructs - explicitly - that the bishop ensure a healthy devotion according to the teachings offend Church (read Marialus Cultus - which explains what this means).  Zadar also upholds the local bishop’s authority to ensure that devotion happening “in Medjugorje and all connected to it” are in accordance with the Church’s teachings on Marian devotion, and liturgical norms (in other words, you can’t include the “gospa” during liturgical functions, such as Mass.

*
you can read the 1991 Zadar Declaration here:

+
http://medjugorjedocuments.blogspot.com/2008/09/zadar-declaration-1991.html

+

Source: http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/ZANICMED.HTM

Forgive iPhone typos in my comments. It’s hard to see them. Above I have offend where it should be offered (auto spell correctioncan be good and bad).

From interview with AB Burke re: his statement of OLOA “Canonically approved”:  “I was not in a position to approve anything.” 

http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2009/newsflash-jun-13-09.htm#G1291994422187

IOW, he gave a personal opinion based solely on materials given him which covered only the earliest portion of the cause.  The apparitions and messages continued long after that early period of involvement with Bishop Leibold who backed what he knew of the messages as well as the seer herself, being her spiritual advisor at the time.  His actions showed his personal promotion of the cause but he himself always deferred to the Bishop of Toledo.  There is the acknowledgement therefore by C. Burke of Bishop Blair (THE local bishop of authority now over the cause’s approval, noted by all Bishops)and therefore also an acknowledgement of the normal Church procedure of approval of any private revelation only via the local Bishop. 

Unfortunately though, due to Burke’s position, his statement has caused confusion (obvious example in first comment)in the understanding of what has yet to be examined in the totality of this history.  It was, sad to say, a rather premature statement which has served those who wish to rush things - something Bishop Leibold, the spiritual director of Sr. Neuzil, the seer, warned her about.  Bishop Leibold understood that the messages of inner spiritual renewal, of purity, and the devotion to the indwelling of the Holy Trinity had to be realized first by the faithful ... that this was the intention of heaven through our lady’s mission for America to lead the world in purity. Merely marching a statue, quickly created and not according to the orders of our lady in the messages for its design and designer, would be to defile the purity of our lady’s intentions for America’s renewal in purity.

Of course the devotion has been and continues to be promoted in that gradual way of greater understanding.  All of the correct history, in the intention of Sr. Mildred Neuzil, via the lawful bequeathing of all materials from the entire history by the seer herself, not to be added to or deleted from, can be found at

http://www.ourladyofamerica.com/

It is a beautiful but sad history and demonstrates as well the attacks that come upon seers throughout Catholic history….another proof of the evil one’s attempts to block the true intentions of heaven from being realized in their entirety.

Some interesting current news re: Medjugorje that’s been discussed in many places:

http://www.medjugorjemiracles.com/2010/12/pope-benedict-vi-has-likely-visited-medjugorje-and-thinks-favorably-of-it/

http://crownofstars.blogspot.com/2010/12/feed-my-sheep.html

http://crownofstars.blogspot.com/2010/12/pope-benedict-smilies-for-medjugorje.html

http://ministryvalues.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1318&Itemid=214

Thank God the Gospels aren’t so formulaic. No wonder protestants think we’re all going to hell.

I still think that America refers to South America, Central America, and North America, since South, Central, and North are all qualifiers of the common land America.  Apparently the only place in America that has sates under a common government is the area north of Mexico and south of Canada.

After listing the positive and negative criteria, the Norms for the Discernment of Apparitions says:

“These Criteria, both positive and negative, should be considered indicative and not exhaustive, and should be taken cumulatively, as it were, in convergence with one another.”

Indicative = indicating
Exhaustive = taxing
Cumulatively = accumulated parts, same point
Convergence = Union

In other words, the criteria don’t consider every possible event but only indicate what should be the norm for all events, and they are to be understood point by point, both criteria in union with one another.

To give an example: The norms don’t consider messages from aliens. There’s nothing in the norms that says what to do in case of aliens giving people messages. But the norms do indicate what criteria ought to be used in the case of messages from aliens: Is the aliens’ message in accordance with Catholic Faith? Does the recipient live a normal Christian life? Etc.

To give another example: You can’t point to one point in the negative criteria and say the other points are valid too: You can’t point to doctrinal error in a message and say the visionary is also guilty of child abuse or sacrilege. But at the same time, you also can’t ignore one criteria for another: You can’t point to moral certainty for a message and say the visionary is not guilty of disobedience.

That’s my understanding.

Rose:  thanks so much for your comments.  As we have seen so many times in the past, authentic visionaries, such as Sister Millie (Our Lady of America’s messages), suffer more from the Church than they do from skeptics (and yes, ourladyofamerica.com is the only “official” site).  Also, appreciated J.S. comments.  In light of Diane’s comments we all better have our paperwork ready when we try to get into Heaven because that will be far more important than what is in our hearts (not)!

I find the issue in the first two paragraphs just as interesting as the rest. The Blessed Virgin appeared in “America” (which in most languages includes both the North and the South) long before the British Colonies on the east coast of North America grouped together in rebellion against the crown. In 1531 The Virgin of Guadalupe appeared in “Mexico” or New Spain, whose territory for centuries after the aparition would spread to and include much of the South of the United States of America, from California right on over to Florida. Papal declarations have constantly affirmed that she is the Patroness and Mother of the Americas including both the North and the South. To say that Our Lady of Guadalupe is not an approved apparition of America (which in this article refers to the current legal boundaries of the United States of America) seems incredibly un-Catholic. It’s not a big deal in the long run. I mean Mary is Mary… there’s only one right? I think its humbling to some that the Patroness of “The Americas” appeared in Mexico City and not in Washington DC or New York. Catholicism in the Americas began with the French in the north and the Spanish in the South. The Blessed Virgin appeared before there were any of the boundaries created by men. The Morenita de Tepeyac is the Mother of all Americans, North and South and the first approved apparition for all Americans!

Diane:  “Instead, Zadar reminds people of the position that it cannot be affirmed that anything supernatural is involved.”

And Zadar also reminds people of the position that it cannot be affirmed that anything supernatural is NOT involved!  That’s the proper and whole understanding of that particular choice of positions by any commission - esp. when a commission is interrupted by war and more is yet to be expected.  And of course, by now, we all know that that future is now with a wholly new commission established for ongoing examination by the Vatican - and beyond the local bishop’s sole authority.

Yes the Mostar bishops formed part of the first, second and third commissions on Medjugorje, but not the latest, the fourth, put together by the Holy Father. I wonder why?

All this talk about Mary.  Let’s all remember the Savior of the world, Jesus, and what WE need to KNOW, in order to have eternal salvation with Him.

I pray bishops would spend their time TEACHING and PREACHING about Jesus instead of endless hours they spend verifying apparitions of Mary.

Whether this is true or not will not amount to a hill of beans, if Catholic souls miss the boat & find themselves not in union with Christ, looking at the Big Picture.

I must add: many, if not MOST, bishops were swayed by psychologists that said clery pedophiles could be cured.  Right?

Are the bishops not now blaming Catholic psychologists for bad advice?  I ask all of you: how much credibility do these bishops have now? 

EARTH TO THE BISHOPS: concentrate on Preaching and Teaching about Jesus, so our country will result in more God-honoring people, creating God-honoring laws, and we will not be on rabbit trails in our faith, that do not matter at all, in the long run.  Even Mary would be happy with that.

Rose: Zadar also reminds people of the position that it cannot be affirmed that anything supernatural is NOT involved! 

+

“It cannot be affirmed” certainly doesn’t explicitly exclude supernaturality of events. That would be a “constat de non….”

+

But since you agree that “cannot be affirmed” means that supernaturality cannot be affirmed, why would people refer to the entity of Medjugorje as “Our Lady” before the Church declares the apparitions “worthy of belief”. That is the language used by Bishop Ricken, and what makes this Green Bay event such a good case study.

+
Medjugorje does not enjoy that level of approval. Hence, Medjugorje supporters are always the first to proclaim that we should “wait and see”.... unless…. unless someone is already declaring the vision as the Blessed Virgin Mary ahead of the Church. Bernadette certainly wasn’t that presumptuous in Lourdes. She went out of her way to wait for the Church to discern that.

This is a really great event that has happened in the U.S. but I am wondering where or when does the Vatican come in even though the bishop is the one who decides. I am confused there.
To cradle catholic. True devotion to Mary leads to Jesus. She points to Him and that is whom she serves. In the apparitions of Robinsonville she came to Adele to tell her to teach the catechism and other tenants of faith. She never said I am the Way the Truth and the Life. Just as the moon reflects the sun, the Blessed Mother reflects Jesus. Praise God for all the blessings we have received.

Why should anyone refer to Our Lady of Medjugorje?... Well the apparition introduced herself as the Blessed Virgin, and later as the Queen of Peace. Medjugorje identifies the location of the particular apparitions.

So to identify which apparitions we are talking about I guess we could say Our Lady Queen of Peace at Medjugorje, or Our Lady Blessed Virgin of Medjugorje.

Diane doesn’t appear to have a problem mentioning the word Medjugorje to identify the apparitions claimed there.

Usual nit-picking on Diane’s part. And I see she has managed to switch the focus from Greenbay to Medjugorje, Thanks Dianne, it gives me an excuse to comment. Keep it going! :)

@pilgrim - I find it befuddling that you miss the main point: when you refer to the alleged apparition of Medjugorje under any approved or known title (i.e., Our Lady, Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Peace, etc.), you are doing so ahead of the Church. As I said, in Lourdes, Bernadette referred to the apparition before it was approved as, “the lady”. She did not claim that “Our Lady” was appearing to her. She had the humility and docility to let the Church discern who it was appearing to her.

To Rreyes:

In your own words, will you please describe to me what role the Holy Spirit plays in your life, and what is the character, nature and function of the Holy Trinity?

Secondly, what is necessary for a person to be justified before God?  In your own words?

Rreyes: This is a really great event that has happened in the U.S. but I am wondering where or when does the Vatican come in even though the bishop is the one who decides. I am confused there.
+

Set aside some time and do a careful reading of the norms. This link takes you to a translation that is from the Latin, not the French. Read specifically what it says about the diocesan bishop, then later about how and why the Church may intervene.  In the case of Medjugorje, Vatican spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi stated that the Holy See took up the case at the request of the BiH Bishop’s Conference (Read 1a and b in the section about the Church intervening). I don’t have time now to get the link, but if you google Medjugorje Commission and Federico Lombardi, you can read through a number of news sources who quoted him on this.

+

http://d-rium.blogspot.com/p/normae-s-congregationis.html

So at Greenbay, no one assumed that it was the Blessed Virgin, not for 150 years, despite all the pilgrims and priests making their way to the place of apparition, even when the apparition identified itself as the Queen of Heaven. Not for one moment did anyone assume it was Our Lady? Now we are back to Greenbay and the topic in hand!

Doesn’t Satan also appear as an angel of light?  Think about it.

Back to Medjugorje and church intervention.

It was the CDF that intervened when the Mostar bishop concluded the first commission he set up on Medjugorje. He attempted to declare a negative result but cardinal Ratzinger was one step ahead and prevented the bishop making any official declaration as he knew as most sensible people did that the Commission was weighted to the bishop’s own personal view on the claimed apparitions. So the Holy See invited the Yugoslav bishop’s Conference to form a new commission. This resulted in the Zadar decelartion, not for or against, but left to time and further study. After the Balkan war and the beacuse the Yugoslav BC no longer existed, Pope Benedict invited the BIH BC to give study to the phenomenon. After two years nothing had been done and the head of the BiH BC cardinal Puljic handed the commission back to the Holy See. Now a fourth commission is underway to give further study to the Medjugorje phenomenon.

New Observer… But it’s counterfeit, the light is not real. Think about it. Especially the bright lights of the world. That’s the angel of light you are referring to. If it’s not then what light is it?

Pilgrim, anything that directs the centrality of your focus off of Christ is, (as St. Paul says)—a doctrine of demons.  For HOW is this appearance (or non-appearance) relevant to your salvation?  We are not saved by Mary.  Yes, honor her and respect her.  But as to your eternal life, this is only a distraction.

Diane:

But since you agree that “cannot be affirmed” means that supernaturality cannot be affirmed, why would people refer to the entity of Medjugorje as “Our Lady” before the Church declares the apparitions “worthy of belief”. That is the language used by Bishop Ricken, and what makes this Green Bay event such a good case study.

+
Medjugorje does not enjoy that level of approval. Hence, Medjugorje suporters are always the first to proclaim that we should “wait and see”.... unless…. unless someone is already declaring the vision as the Blessed Virgin Mary ahead of the Church. Bernadette certainly wasn’t that presumptuous in Lourdes. She went out of her way to wait for the Church to discern that.

Your yourself then admit that it is an open question….to be studied further.  That study of which Rome is rather supervising now MUST include all of the natural and spontaneous interaction of the pilgrims who freely associate with all that comes with the event - its history, its personalities involved, personal experiences, healings, etc. - IOW, nothing can be hampered in this free association or any findings by the Church would be considered tampered with.  Rome is fully aware of human nature, and in fact, finds it blessed.  It is only through that openness can any working of the Spirit be manifested since any working intended by heaven is for the benefit of its human children in this world.  So, anyone who insists on tying the hands of those faithful who will be the ones to actually show the fruits of their pilgrimages to those studying the events is the one who is tampering with the Church’s own ongoing “objective” study and THAT is what is truly interfering and stepping ahead or outside or backwards from what is currently permitted by the Church.  People will continue to speak from their own experience and use titles suitable to what they learn, see, hear and experience in order to be honest witnesses for study.  And the Vatican is fully aware of that and has not denied such spontaneity.  The pilgrims themselves are not considered the officialdom of the Church!!  Chill out and be happy for all the benefits acquired by the pilgrims - in the millions.

Other difficulties in understanding:

The Vatican can get involved after local approval usually when a place becomes more a place benefitting the whole world in order to acknowledge that fact - in its charisms and messages, etc., going beyond just the area of locality.

People ought not look to the Virgin as anyone who decides to come on her own, by her own will, as someone separate from the Trinity…ever!  She is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit thus anything coming through her to the world is always under the permission, order or intention of the Father’s will for the benefit of His children.  If people wish to denigrate such a mission because it is brought to the world by God’s own Mother herself, they then deny that intention of God in sending her to her children as a mother to them by His own will, to their own loss.

NEW OBSERVER… I can’t really see the point you are attempting to make. Are you Catholic? If so, then you will understand that Mary points the way to her Son, not to herself.

I second Matthew and Rick that America is the land from Canada to Argentina/Chile. Guadalupe is the first apparition of Mary in the new world.  There have also been other Church approved apparitions of Mary in the Anerican continent like Betania in Venezuela and Cuapa in Nicaragua.

People from Mexico to Argentina/Chile learn and know that the continent is ONE and is called “America”.  Americas is the plural in Spanish when North America, Central America and South America are split into geographical areas just like when Europe is slip into North Europe, Central Europe and South Europe but it is still one Europe.

The name America is being used more recently to mean the USA by the English Speaking people but it is still also the name for the continent
for most of the rest of the world.

The Vatican is well aware of this situation and when the pope addresses this continent, America, He does it as one big whole continent and not two.  If the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the Catholic Church
still addresses the Catholics in Canada, USA, Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Colombia,Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Argentina etc. as living in one continent, America, then I think apparitions in this continet should also follow him. 

The apparition in Wisconsin is the first approved apparition of Mary in the United States of America, the country.

I think Satan is a master of distraction.  Taking the focus OFF of Jesus works for him and his fallen angels. 

With all the data shared by bloggers here, it looks like many Catholics have worked themselves up into near frenzy about Mary and her role in salvation.

It’s no wonder there is a group of people that now want the Vatican to declare her Co-Redemptrix or something.  It’s not from God.  Mary had a role to play, and she faithfully carried it out.  She is a good role model, perhaps the IDEAL role model for all of us.  But that’s it.

We must spend our time READING SCRIPTURE - the Old Testament and the New Testament, and learn about God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and get ready to spend the rest of eternity with our Holy Triune God.

Cradle Catholic
Jesus is and always has been the center of Catholicism. What you are saying sounds more like Protestant Rhetoric. Is the “Word” a thing? NO!!! It is JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. In this situation and instances we have no problems with our concepts of salvation since we never have nor will deny Christ. Anyone who puts the Blessed Mother as the center will crumble. Her role is to lead us to HIM.
Scripture is part of it, but we have to “Eat of HIS body and drink of HIS blood.” The Catholic Church started from HIM. If you are in doubt talk to your spiritual advisor.
May God bless you always!

“I think Satan is a master of distraction.  Taking the focus OFF of Jesus works for him and his fallen angels.”

He has led so many angels and men to Hell. Yet we would be fools to ignore the doctrines of Satan which Jesus gave the Catholic Church. We must focus on and live by the doctrines of Our Lord.

“With all the data shared by bloggers here, it looks like many Catholics have worked themselves up into near frenzy about Mary and her role in salvation.”

A frenzy ought to be avoided over anything. But keeping to the doctrines of Mary which Jesus gave the Catholic Church is faithfulness, not frenzy. The Body of Christ must be of one mind with Christ.

“It’s no wonder there is a group of people that now want the Vatican to declare her Co-Redemptrix or something.  It’s not from God.  Mary had a role to play, and she faithfully carried it out.  She is a good role model, perhaps the IDEAL role model for all of us.  But that’s it.”

Co-Redemptrix is a doctrine of Mary which Jesus gave the Catholic Church. Co-Redemptrix means “Mary obeyed Jesus and is our ideal role model of obedience.”

“We must spend our time READING SCRIPTURE - the Old Testament and the New Testament, and learn about God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and get ready to spend the rest of eternity with our Holy Triune God.”

No, we must spend our time loving God and man. I would much rather spend time living the Word than reading the Word. If you wish to make a frenzy out of the Word, that is your ill choice. But I would rather make the right choice: Obedience to Jesus.

Rreyes:  So what is necessary for a person to be justified before God?  What role does the Holy Spirit play in your own life?  In your own words.

“I think Satan is a master of distraction.  Taking the focus OFF of Jesus works for him and his fallen angels.”

He has led so many angels and men to Hell. Yet we would be fools to ignore the doctrines of Satan which Jesus gave the Catholic Church. We must focus on and live by the doctrines of Our Lord.

“With all the data shared by bloggers here, it looks like many Catholics have worked themselves up into near frenzy about Mary and her role in salvation.”

A frenzy ought to be avoided over anything. But keeping to the doctrines of Mary which Jesus gave the Catholic Church is faithfulness, not frenzy. The Body of Christ must be of one mind with Christ.

“It’s no wonder there is a group of people that now want the Vatican to declare her Co-Redemptrix or something.  It’s not from God.  Mary had a role to play, and she faithfully carried it out.  She is a good role model, perhaps the IDEAL role model for all of us.  But that’s it.”

Co-Redemptrix is a doctrine of Mary which Jesus gave the Catholic Church. Co-Redemptrix means Mary obeyed Jesus and is our ideal role model of obedience.

“We must spend our time READING SCRIPTURE - the Old Testament and the New Testament, and learn about God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and get ready to spend the rest of eternity with our Holy Triune God.”

No, we must spend our time loving God and man. I would much rather spend time living the Word than reading the Word. If you wish to make a frenzy out of the Word, that is your ill choice. But I would rather make the right choice: Obedience to Jesus.

You ask me what I believe to be justified by God. To be faithful to God through the Sacraments and obedience to the Church. Remember that Obedience is far greater than any sacrifice.
The Holy Spirit is active in my life. So many times HE has guided me in my choices.
May God bless you and may every doubt you may have about the beautiful Catholic faith be cleared.
Jesus loves you!

Absolutely, America is one continent! Geography is a form of truth, and language should reflect that.

United States of America, why is that OF AMERICA and the whole name of the USA correct?!!

Kindly address. Thank You.

I wanted to address this statement earlier, but could not from iPhone because of references I wanted to cite. Here is the post (emphasis mine in bold):
+

Posted by pilgrim on Friday, Dec 10, 2010 5:25 PM (EDT): Yes the Mostar bishops formed part of the first, second and third commissions on Medjugorje, but not the latest, the fourth, put together by the Holy Father. I wonder why?
+

Sadly, this is just a jab at Bishop Peric, and the sarcasm isn’t even cloaked.  For the benefit of others reading, here are the facts:
+

The norms have a provisions for intervention of the Holy See. Under section III-3, it states: 3. The Apostolic See can intervene, either at the request of the Ordinary or of a qualified group of the faithful, or even directly, by reason of the universal jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff (cf. IV, below).
+

Question: How do we know whether it was at the request of the bishop, the request of the faithful, or if the Holy Father took the case from the hands of the bishop for this current Commission?
+

Answer: We take the Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, at his word.  What did he say?  There was a press conference.  Here is how two news organizations reported Father Lombardi’s response:
+

Zenit on 3-17-2010: “The bishops of Bosnia and Herzegovina therefore requested that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome to take the situation into its hands,” added Father Lombardi.
.

Catholic News Service on 3-17-2010: Father Lombardi said the bishops of Bosnia-Herzegovina asked the doctrinal congregation to study the alleged apparitions.
+

Therefore, we know that the question of is in the hands of the Holy See - at the request of the BiH Bishop’s Conference.  Now, let’s go back to the top of my comment when I quoted section III-3.  It refers us to Section IV.  What does this say? (emphasis in mine)
+

IV — INTERVENTION BY THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

2. The Sacred Congregation will be able either to evaluate the Ordinary’s manner of acting and approve it, or, if possible and appropriate, to initiate a new examination of the matter, distinct from the study completed by the Ordinary, either on its own or through a special commission.
+

Question: If, when the Holy See intervenes, “the Ordinary is always to be consulted”, why would he need to be on the Commission? There is really nothing for him to offer to this Commission that is not in black and white.  He has volumes of documentation, with even more that spilled out - interestingly, all in Italian (presumably the language of the Commission) in the months leading up to the Commission.  How did he know to do that?

+
A final observation on this point that “pilgrim” neglects to mention:  Franciscans from the Herzegovina Province were involved in past commissions, but they are not represented on this commission.  In fact, there are no native Croatian Franciscans from BiH, Croatia, or abroad involved.  There is a Franciscan on the Commission - Rev. Fr. David-Maria Jaeger, O.F.M., J.C.D - a native born Israeli.
+

Those interested can learn more about some of the Commission members that I put together before the official list was released (and the blogpost is still relevant).

Responding to this above, which I cannot quote in full due to length:

Posted by Rose on Friday, Dec 10, 2010 7:47 PM (EDT):Diane:
.
Your yourself then admit that it is an open question….to be studied further.

.

Show me where I said that the question of Medjugorje is closed. My personal opinion, which I have a right to hold and express, is that the alleged apparitions are not authentic. You have a right to hold and express the belief that the alleged apparitions are authentic.  However, it is presumptuous to refer to the entity of Medjugorje as “Our Lady”, or “The Blessed Virgin Mary”, or “Queen of Peace” since Holy Mother Church has not yet made that judgment.

.

Further quoting Rose: That study of which Rome is rather supervising now MUST include all of the natural and spontaneous interaction of the pilgrims who freely associate with all that comes with the event - its history, its personalities involved, personal experiences, healings, etc. - IOW, nothing can be hampered in this free association or any findings by the Church would be considered tampered with.

.
Well, it’s settled then.  You don’t need a Vatican commission with members having broad expertise since you have already personally discerned what the commission must do, and have further determined that it “would be considered tampered with” if it did not have those things.  Don’t you think it would be best to let the Church figure out what criteria it will use?  It already has criteria (in the first link below).

.
Please consider spending a little more time reading these things on discernment of spirits and apparitions.  Not to worry - none of these mentions Medjugorje specifically because they are generic.

- Normae S. Congregationis (1978 Vatican Document on the Discernment of Presumed Apparitions and Revelations)
+

- Private Revelations and the Discernment of Spirits by Fr. William Most
+

- Apparitions True or False by Fr. Peter Joseph
+

- Discernment of Spirits in the Priestly Ministry by Rev. Titus Kieninger, ORC

Nick, you wrote “But keeping to the doctrines of Mary which Jesus gave the Catholic Church is faithfulness.”  I agree that faithfulness is very important.  When did **Jesus** give us doctrine concerning Mary?

“When did **Jesus** give us doctrine concerning Mary?”

When He became her Son. But if you don’t believe in His doctrines on Mary, I suggest you stop filling the comments with arguments on Catholicism and go study the Scriptures with a heart open to the truth.

I’m still wondering why the Mostar bishop was not called to serve on the latest commission. Diane couldn’t give the answer on this one or direct me to any documentation that gives a reason for the Holy Father not giving the local bishop another opportunity to serve on another commission.

Perhaps the bishop’s public rant against cardinal Schonborn last Christmas may have had something to do with it? Perhaps Benedict knows a little more about the bishop’s behaviour than Diane does? The bishop is not always forthcoming with the full story, demonstrated by the way he only published part of the letter on his website sent to him by cardinal Schonborn; and he never came clean to the full facts as to why after many years he stopped the seer Mirjana receiving her apparitions at the Cenacolo Community in Medjugorje.

Diane also attempts sleight of hand and blowing smokescreens in an efffort to distract from some of the real facts. I have yet to see her explanation as to just why the BIH bishops conference handed back the commission it was given by the Holy See after two years of producing nothing.

Benedict is a smart man. He did the proper thing in affording the BiH BC an opportunity to examine the Medjugorje phenomenon. Perhaps he knew already that it would come to nothing with the Mostar bishop’s involvement. Nevertheless he afforded the BiH BC the opportunity to examine the question of shrine status after there was a legitimate question about its status declared by the Yugoslav BC when the conference went out of existence with the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Perhaps Bishop Peric sensed that the Holy See was making moves to ensure that shrine status continued and so showed his hand two weeks before news of the commission was announced by publicly stating at the Confirmation Mass in St James Medjugorje that Medjugorje was not a shrine.

So there we have it. The bishop’s mind was made up prior to any commission study. Hence the reason why the BC, made up of only three bishops at that time, was unable to get the commission off the ground with the local ordinary so opposed, and eventually had to hand it back to the Holy See without any work done. The bishop’s outburst in St James Church damaged any credibility the commission may have had of fairness or unbiased study, especially on the question of shrine status.

Perhaps, after bishop Peric has moved on or retired, there may be another opportunity for the BiH bishops conference to be give consideration to the question of shrine status for Medjugorje at national level, that’s of course, if the Holy See doesn’t step in first and grant international shrine status and appoint its own guardian, perhaps even a Franciscan bishop? Benedict does not seem to have the same problem with the Franciscan order as Diane does or the Mostar bishop. Benedict recently appointed a fifth bishop for BIH, a Franciscan. I wonder if at sometime he may be considered as a possible Guardian of the Medjugorje Shrine?

For Nick
Well Nick, why would you need to make reparation? Two of my Bishops have blessed a thousand holy cards each and they have been distributed all around the parishes where i live. If you feel you need to know what sort of reparation you can do to make up for your promoting Our Lady of America,(I would think She would be happy about such a loveliness on your part as Her child) why don’t you go ask Cardinal Burke. I don’t think he would agree with you. I will pray for you very much.
Peace, Love and Joy in the Heart of our Immaculate Mother.
amanda

It is sad that Roman Catholics continue to pick and chose what they want to believe. One can see that when you veer from Church teaching you lose your way. Christ through His Roman Catholic Church has given us the map to Heaven—follow its directions. Accept its teachings and its authority—don’t be your own Pope.

Diane:  “Further quoting Rose: That study of which Rome is rather supervising now MUST include all of the natural and spontaneous interaction of the pilgrims who freely associate with all that comes with the event - its history, its personalities involved, personal experiences, healings, etc. - IOW, nothing can be hampered in this free association or any findings by the Church would be considered tampered with.”

.
Well, it’s settled then.  You don’t need a Vatican commission with members having broad expertise since you have already personally discerned what the commission must do, and have further determined that it “would be considered tampered with” if it did not have those things.  Don’t you think it would be best to let the Church figure out what criteria it will use?  It already has criteria (in the first link below).

....

I have never said anything beyond what the Church is presently doing re: the ongoing study of Medj. and I would appreciate your not putting other words or intentions to my thoughts.  We do have you on record now though stating what was obvious anyway that you believe Medj. not to be authentic…even BEFORE the Church makes her own judgment.  That is what is the foundation for all of your personal judgments against those who wish to simply comply with what the Church presently permits of them.  If you don’t wish to do the same, then at least try and abstain from disparaging those who make pilgrimages, as allowed, and report their experiences of peace or even what they consider to be prayers answered or Faith renewed such as returning to the sacraments.  We should be praising God in thanks for such favors not attempting to stifle the Holy Spirit’s movement. I set up no criteria for any commission (impossible anyway) but I do know what is required of any serious, objective commission to study such phenomena by the Church.  Obviously they need to record the experiences of the faithful, possible fruits being shown, honest discussion, behavior of those involved, etc.  And yes, that cannot be stifled or “tampered with” by anyone outside or the study would not be considered objective but rather prejudicial and prejudged.  If you don’t accept that then all your quotes of the criteria of your choice is simply without any life to it.

RE: the local bishop being mostly out of the current decision making re: the phenomena itself - that is because of just that criteria of objectivity with no obvious reason for prejudicial judgment.  There is a history in the region of animosity between the Franciscan priests who were considered like family by the faithful during the Communist years of control and war times.  When the secular priests were not too diplomatically pushed into the known Franciscan parishes not only did the people emotionally respond but some of the Franciscans did as well trying to remain to serve the people who would not go to the others.  This didn’t set well with the bishop, seeing it as an undermining of his authority.  That disfavor of the few in disobedience carried over and created a certain barrier of prejudicial communication.  These differences obviously entered into the treatment of the Franciscan parish of Medjugorje itself and it became obvious to anyone wishing a clean approach to the phenomena of the happenings which just happened to occur within that parish.  There was also a prejudicial objection by the local bishop to such apparition type phenomena in Catholic history itself and stated so.  This had to be dealt with by the higher Church authorities with as much face saving diplomacy as possible and that was done with the new commission.

Anyway, we have to live in the current position and direction of the Church.  No one has any business trying to disparage anyone who simply does so and does not continue to live in the past or prop up anyone as the authority presently who simply does not have that authority according to the Church - for good reasons.  Since C. Schoenborn acted boldly within his own archdiocese of Vienna, inviting a couple of the seers there, even AFTER his own personal visit to Medj. to personally see what had such an effect on his own faithful within his own AD including the majority of new priestly vocations, and without any reprimands from Rome for that recent invite, one can safely say that more of that honest approach to those involved and not less is what is needed in order to allow the light to reflect the truth openly.  That is the only way to see and to make correct judgments of everything in the future.  And of course everything continues and is not over as yet for any full judgment. 

....

It appears that what certain people reflect is fear that such appeal to the millions of the world - and of all faiths - cannot be restrained.  And that is an odd position for any Christian with hope for conversion of the world to be in.

Not to hearken back to that other, tired, thread but to hearken back to that other, tired, thread {wink} http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pope-benedict-on-mystical-experiences/ what Nick said here within the first few comments is what I fear we will hear from to few Medjugorje, namely “What can I do in reparation for spreading devotion to Our Lady of America? I thought it was approved.” Jimmy quickly brings correction on the apparition mentioned in this thread but still, what Nick said, is a wonderful thing to hear. That is the correct spirit, so different from the common fruit of those who profess undying faithfulness to the Big Medj

Pilgrim said:
.
I’m still wondering why the Mostar bishop was not called to serve on the latest commission. Diane couldn’t give the answer on this one or direct me to any documentation….

You apparently missed the extensive response I gave to this just about 4 post’s up from yours.  It was made at 12:03am December 11th.  I also explained why I had to delay my response.  I’m not retired, sitting at home behind my computer all day.  I was out the door at 6:30am and I didn’t get home until 9:30pm. I had been using my iPhone on some earlier comments which was too cumbersome.

@pilgrim - thank you for displaying some real fruits of Medjugorje with your response (and you can’t even edit or delete your content here as I’ve seen you do so often in forums and blogs where you have such control). 

.
Your lack of charity towards the apostolic successor of Mostar-Duvno is noteworthy as is the rash judgment, and calumny, against the sacred person of Bishop Peric. It’s all cloaked when you precede your thoughts by the word, “perhaps”.  But venom cannot be fully cloaked and your attitude toward’s Bishop Peric comes through loud and clear. 

.
After the Holy See makes it’s decision, the full weight of such commentaries against legitimate Church authorities in this matter will hopefully prompt one, big, collective examination of conscience in this regard. 

.
My deepest regrets, dear pilgrim, that you have been taken in by chief protagonists, who altered and omitted information from those early days, which are now causing you to have such disdain for Church hierarchy directly involved with this case. 

.
The real Blessed Virgin Mary would lead you to show love and respect for Bishop Peric - even though he is opposed. It is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit to show such visible contempt for legitimate Church hierarchy involved with this case.

.
I also want to point out that while you evoke the name of Cardinal Schonborn so often, he is not on the Commission.  But, Cardinal Angelo Amato is on the Commission.  Remember him? He is the man who, while Secretary of the CDF in 2007 directed the Italian Bishop’s Conference of Tuscany to Bishop Peric’s 2006 Confirmation homily in which he made some very firm demands as Ordinary of the place.  Then Archbishop Amato is also the man who directed Bishop Peric to make known to the world that Tomislav Vlasic was being investigated, “Within the context of the phenomenon Medjugorje, this Dicastery is studying the case of Father Tomislav VLASIC OFM” (Amato’s words, not Peric’s).

.
Thank you.  Thank you, pilgrim, for making visible the great division the entity of Medjugorje has caused by your attitude towards the apostolic successor of Mostar-Duvno.  In the end, I am confident that Truth will triumph over the wave of enthusiasm that has caused so much bickering at every level of the Church.  The “Great Sign” promised nearly 30 years ago by the entity of Medjugorje has never come.  The bishops of Mostar have said that the greatest sign is no sign at all.  To my mind, the greatest sign is that amidst some very good fruits, is some of the greatest division the Church has seen since Humanae Vitae. Thank you for making this so visible.

.
I wish I had time to “fisk” your piece in full, but other duties call.

.
And, thank you for responding to my call.

Diane,

I also want to point out that while you evoke the name of Cardinal Schonborn so often, he is not on the Commission.

But, more important, the Commission is to work with and report to the CDF, of which Cardinal Schoenborn is a member!!

Diane said, << I’m not retired, sitting at home behind my computer all day.>>

I’m sure there are many retired people who will not share Diane’s assumption on how they spend their day :)

And then Diane speaks about charity – this is after her crusade against Franciscan priests – yet Diane decries those who point out the errors of the Mostar bishop in his personal opinions. She sees that as an attack but fails or chooses not to see her own lack of charity towards the priesthood. She may have a love for bishop Peric but is unable to extend the same charity to all priests, damaged though some are, or to those who support the phenomenon in general. THis demonstrates intolerance – intolerance of those who choose to follow and believe in the Medjugorje phenomenon. Diane is not content to be at peace with her own decision and belief. Instead she crusades against those who do not share her belief. I do not take offence at any personal comments made against me by Diane as the more she goes down this track tells me much about her and the strength of any argument she puts forward.

So be assured Diane, whatever remarks you make against me, is water of a duck’s back. I am as confident as ever that the tree producing good fruit at Medjugorje will be protected. As to any question about the apparitions, we could all be waiting for another 100 years on that one and that’s fine with me because it will mean that the Holy See is still unable to declare that the apparitions are “not worthy of belief”. Until it does so I shall continue with my personal belief and thank God for the marvellous harvest of abundant good fruit that the Church is blessed with at Medjugorje.

The “great division” Diane speaks of is another fallacy. There may be a difference in understanding or acceptance of the apparitions but that does not mean the Church is divided. What Diane seems unable to accept or not want to acknowledge is that Medjugorje has brought people back to the Church and reunited them with the Sacraments. This is not “Good News” in Diane’s book of belief because it demonstrates good fruits. So this important fact is ignored by Diane and other opponents of Medjugorje. They shut their eyes and put fingers in their ears to this fact. They prefer to remain blind and deaf to the good fruits of people reconciling with God and his church and to the sacraments.

The Baptist wasn’t sure if Jesus was the genuine article. But Jesus answered John’s concerns with these words: “Tell John what you hear and see; the blind see again, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised to life and the GOOD NEWS is proclaimed to the poor, and happy is the man who does not lose faith in me.” (Matthew 11 : 4-5)

So despite your attempt to suggest that Medjugorje is harming the Church, the Good News shows otherwise. The fruit is clear to see. And that is why I believe the Holy See will do its utmost to protect any tree producing good fruit, even the one at Medjugorje. Peace :)

There’s the end of another worthwhile conversation. It’s the Church that Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against not - oh, bother, why feed another faggot into the Pilgrim’s unquenchable fire? Time to pray that Mizpah prayer and beat it on outta here.

Rose: But, more important, the Commission is to work with and report to the CDF, of which Cardinal Schoenborn is a member!!
.

True. He is a member of the CDF.  It’s interesting how the German language edition of Vatican Radio interpreted Cardinal Schonborn’s letter to Bishop Peric as an apology (that is a google translate, but you can see a better translation here by Richard Chonak). That fax from Schonborn to Bishop Peric came directly from Rome, immediately following a meeting with the Pope.  I believe that followed a regular meeting of CDF members (it would have been even more interesting to be a fly on the wall in that meeting).

.
I want to quote something from Bishop Peric’s 2009 Confirmation Homily in Medjugorje which references the 2007 Tuscan Bishop’s memo to priests, exhorting them to read the 2006 homily of Bishop Peric (emphasis mine in bold; my inter-paragraph comments are in brackets; links added for reference).
.

He states:   Finally, a word or two on our local situation. From the 17th to the 24th of January this year I was in Rome and had the opportunity to first of all greet the Holy Father during his General Audience and ask for his blessing for our entire Church in Herzegovina. I also visited the superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and thanked them in particular for informing the bishops of the region of Toscana, in Italy, who had asked the Congregation during their “ad limina” visit what position to take regarding the phenomenon of Medjugorje. The then Secretary of the Congregation, Archbishop Angelo Amato recommended that the bishops convey to the priests and faithful of their dioceses the homily that was given here in Medjugorje during the rite of Confirmation, on the solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ in the year 2006, which they then did. Cardinal William Levada, the current Prefect of the Congregation then told me: “We advise this to everyone who asks us about Medjugorje”. During my visit I could see that the competent Congregation as well as the Secretariat of State [that would be Cardinal Bertone] are closely following our local events in Herzegovina and we are most grateful to Pope Benedict XVI and the Apostolic See for their charity and concern….I therefore stand by everything I said and dutifully demanded from this very place three years ago….
.

Since Bishop Peric posted this on the diocesan website, where the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal William Levada, can see exactly what he said, (ditto for Cardinal Amato who is on the commission, I am very inclined to see his statement as credible.
.

It is interesting to note the connection some of these names have to the CDF while Pope Benedict was Prefect of the CDF:
.

+Angelo Amato, S.D.B. (Secretary: 19 Dec 2002 to 9 Jul 2008) - now on the Commission and the one who stated that Tomislav Vlasic was being investigated in the context of Medjugorje.  That context was clarified by the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno just ahead of the Commission.
.

+Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B. (Secretary: 13 Jun 1995 to 10 Dec 2002) - we already know how he feels about the fanaticism of “Medjugorjeans” after he found himself on the receiving end of their “charity” when he expressed his personal disbelief on Radio Maria
.

+William Joseph Levada (Prefect: 13 May 2005 - ) - In addition to being quoted by Bishop Peric above with regards to how the CDF handles all inquiries about Medjugorje these days, he also signed - as Prefect - the severe canonical sanctions cited as Tomislav Vlasic was being investigated “in the context of Medjugorje” I mentioned with Commission member Archbishop Amato.
.

Joseph Ratzinger (Prefect: 25 Nov 1981 to 19 Apr 2005) - “I can only say that the statements on Medjugorje that have been attributed to the Holy Father (John Paul II) and to me have been made up out of thin air.” -  interview in Der Speigel magazine, July 22, 1998.
.

The more you comment, the more opportunities you give me to offer direct quotes from Church hierarchy, often with documents from credible sources, rather than from the inuendo offered at Medjugorje protagonist websites, which are often nothing more than hear-say, of someone else’s hear-say.

Of course, it is to be expected that Diane will only draw attention to suit her argument. I understand this and I’m sure other out there do as well. But by doing this Diane once again demonstrates her bias against Medjugorje. And so this also has to be taken into consideration with any item she posts. It will always be slanted AGAINST the phenomenon. So let’s try and redress the balance a little and start posting some of the positive comments and observations made by men of the cloth.

•In january of this year the Italian television morning programme Mattino Cinque turned its attention to Medjugorje and interviewed two cardinals, Archbishop Christoph Schönborn and Msgr Ersilio Tonini.

Most of what cardinal Schönborn spoke about with programme presenter Federica Panicucci has been widely published, but here are some very revealing responses made by cardinal Tonini:

“The position of the church in regards to Medjugorje has always been carefully observed. In this matter, I can tell you of how one day I visited Pope John Paul II. Two bishops were there talking to him, and the conversation casually fell on Medjugorje. One bishop was enthusiastic about it, while the other was rather doubtful. The pope cut it short by stating: ‘God’s grace is free to move how, when, and where it wants.’ This greatly impressed me, since I understood very well that the Pope rejoiced in knowing that the Virgin Mary still has the courage to appear in front of human creatures, to remind them that while time goes by, eternity comes, and it is in eternity that God’s plans are. By carrying the thought of eternity in our lives, we are then able to feel that we are God’s children. These are indeed the big promises which the Lord Jesus came to bring us: to let us know that God awaits us, that we are his children, that he is preparing to pour all his love upon us.

“I repeat that such meeting – given that I saw the Pope so interested on the subject of Medjugorje – greatly impacted on me, and I told myself that perhaps the Lord’s grace wants to make itself felt even more and that the pope, in that instance, felt directly, personally called to this cause. This truly impressed me.”

The cardinal then added: “The Catholic Church does not deem to own the apparitions. Our Lady is free to appear whenever she wants. The Catholic Church is very glad that God manifests himself through miracles and through Our Lady’s apparitions. The Church is obviously jealous and doesn’t want any follies to be introduced, it doesn’t want that there may be creatures who own the apparitions and make Our Lady say what they want her to say. This is an extremely delicate subject. The Church has recognised Our Lady’s right to speak; and naturally, since these are enormous treasures, the Church is jealous that some ‘inventory’ fables, prodigies or miracles may be introduced. This is why I am happy that the Archbishop of Vienna, whom I know very well, is present (appearing on Mattino Cinque); his word is a word of warranty.”

• Cardinal Ersilio Tonini made a pilgrimage to Medjugorje in 2009. Afterwards he testified: “I think Medjugorje is a blessed place and a grace of God; who goes to Medjugorje returns transformed, changed, he reflects himself in that source of grace that is Christ. Christ is at the same time the tap and the source. If in Medjugorje, as it is obvious by now, many conversions happen, it surely means that there is the hand of God. I believe that we should look at Medjugorje with serenity and trust, appreciating all the good and holy things that happen in that place,”

You can probably find several bishops of Italy, and others in the world with such as Bishop Ersilio Tonini - Archbishop Emeritus of Ravenna-Cervia, who have a favorable personal opinion of Medjugorje.
.

I was trying to stick with those involved in the Commission, CDF, and Roman Curia. But, if you want to discuss personal opinions of other members of the hierarchy, let’s look at what Cardinal Saraiva-Martins - Prefect Emeritus of the the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, had to say.  These are just excerpts, so those interested can go to the link for the full interview translation.

.
How should a faithful Catholic who wants to go on pilgrimage to Medjugorje proceed?
“He must not take for granted and must not become convinced that the apparitions are authentic; therefore, he must go to the place to pray, but not through his presence to acknowledge the authenticity of phenomena whose approval depends solely and exclusively on the Church, and which in any case neither subtracts nor adds anything to Revelation, which is already complete in Christ.”

Nota bene: This supports what Cardinal Bertone re-iterated in his 1998 communique to Bishop Gilbert Aubrey when, speaking of pilgrimages he stated: Finally, as regards pilgrimages to Medjugorje, which are conducted privately, this Congregation points out that they are permitted on condition that they are not regarded as an authentification of events still taking place and which still call for an examination by the Church.
.

And are the conversions a sufficient reason to believe in Medjugorje?
“Absolutely not; whether about conversions, or also about healings, it is not a sufficient argument to evaluate the thesis of the authenticity of the apparitions. Just because people convert in this place, it is not given that the Madonna is appearing. Conversion is also possible in a little country parish.”
[snip]

On this subject: the “seers” assert that the apparitions of Medjugorje are the natural successors of the apparitions of Fatima.
“I don’t believe that they are. I see too many differences. As I said before, the little shepherds of Fatima made themselves humble and chose silence; at Medjugorje, I don’t know if that is going to happen; Sister Lucia entered the cloister, at Medjugorje, no one has chosen consecrated life; the same Sister Lucia put into writing the secrets entrusted to her by the Madonna, while at Medjugorje they continue to keep them for themselves. No, I see nothing in common between Fatima and Medjugorje.”

Eminence, in some of the apparitions, the Virgin is said to have asked the six “seers” of Medjugorje not to obey the prohibitions of their diocesan Bishop, such as, for example, to not speak publicly any more of the alleged “visions”.
“The Madonna could not, in any case at all, be anti-hierarchical and incite disobedience, even if the Bishop of Mostar were wrong. This is another element on which to reflect.”
.

I think the case in Green Bay, which is what Jimmy’s post was really about, serves as a good example of the lack of bickering, disagreement, dissent, and division so dominant in Medjugorje discussions.

Hmmmmmmm. . . no one sent me the notice that the rules had changed on what “America” meant.  Way back in the dark ages of the 1960s, my grade school teachers (those good nuns) said it was presumptuous of citizens of the USA to act like we’re the only Americans.  They were quite definite that we should not use “America” if we meant the USA.  This is distinguishable from using “Mexico” alone, because, last I heard, there is no other country or continent that is called “Mexico”!

Of course, my point is very trivial and I posted my comment in fun.  I’m as guilty as the next person of using “America” when I mean the USA.

In a more serious vein - I’m grateful that the Blessed Virgin is visiting us in the USA.  I believe without seeing, but for those who need to see to believe or to facilitate a conversion of heart, perhaps more visits from her would be a wonderful thing.  And regardless of the form of her apparition, she is always the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, and, as such, His first disciple.

Diane said: <<I think the case in Green Bay, which is what Jimmy’s post was really about, serves as a good example of the lack of bickering, disagreement, dissent, and division so dominant in Medjugorje discussions.>>

I didn’t see Jimmy mention the word “Medjugorje” in his initial post. John Thripleton raised a question about four posts down asking how the Green Bay approval related to Medjugorje and that was your chance to switch the focus away from the good news about Green Bay – and it’s carried on ever since. I did point this out early on, but you obviously felt it was important to keep posting your stance on Medjugorje, probably knowing that this would draw a response from those who favour the Medjugorje apparition.

And now you have the front to complain about the disagreement the topic of Medjugorje generates. I’m happy to leave things and get back to Green Bay, as I know I could be here for a very long time if I start posting all the good stuff said by priests about Medjugorje. So if you wish to get back to Greenbay, then that’s fine with me. If you wish to do otherwise and keep up the crusade against Medjugorje then look out for a response from me. We are both free to choose. But maybe we should give some consideration to the owner of this blog and those who follow it. I can’t see many wanting to hang around wanting to keep on reading the same old pros and cons on Medjugorje. I leave it with you, Diane. Peace.

Dianne and everyone else that has contributed to this topic, I want to take this opportunity to offer my sincere apologies for anything that I have said that may have offended or hurt anyone that has posted to this discussion. In my weakness I allowed myself to speak unjustly against others, brothers and sisters in Christ. It was nobody’s fault but my own, and for this I am truly sorry. In the words of St James, “Who am I to give a verdict on my neighbour?” I have done this and now wait for the Lord to lift me up again. Pray for me. Peace.

@ “pilgrim”....I know you may find this hard to believe, but I do not take personally things that are said in these discussions.  Be at peace.  In time, hopefully soon, Holy Mother Church will offer much needed clarification that will put everyone at ease. Pope Benedict XVI has way of bringing parties together and I am convinced he will also do this with the question of Medjugorje when he answers it.

.
Perhaps at some point in the future, we can all spend some time discussing relatively unknown documents on the Blessed Virgin Mary.  As you are probably aware, Vatican II has been heavily distorted by dissenters who have never read any the documents of that Council.  In Lumen Gentium, for example, there exists a whole section on Mary (see section CHAPTER VIII THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, MOTHER OF GOD IN THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST AND THE CHURCH). 

.
There are also the vast writings about Mary by the saints, like those of St. Louis de Montfort, whose preparation: Total Consecration to Jesus through Mary, we likely all have used, but few know about.

.
And then, there are the writings of the Church Fathers on Mary as captured in this book: Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought

.
These are examples of ordinary means to inform ourselves, and others, about the Blessed Virgin Mary.  Apparitions, are extraordinary.  These, once approved, are very good and helpful, but remain extraordinary to what we have through Sacred Scripture, magisterial teachings, and writings of the saints, fathers, and doctors of the Church.

.
Keep your head up pilgrim - your heart is in the right place:  The Blessed Virgin Mary is real and she brings those devoted to her graces that will help us to bring others to Christ.

.
Mir i dobro!

“Las Americas” was the preferred Spanish term for both American continents, for a long, long, long, long, long time. Nowadays, just because Spanish usage has changed, that doesn’t mean that English usage has to follow. Indeed, all English-speaking countries refer to the US fairly often as “America” and the American continents as “the Americas”.

Now, as it happens, there are large parts of Latin America and North America that used to be referred to as Mexico. If I went down to a Mexican news site or a Guatemalan news site, and complained about people talking about only land behind the borders of Mexico being Mexican, I suspect I’d get pretty short shrift.

So yeah, you can go pound sand and gargle nails.

Nick, I am trying to understand your post.  You wrote:  “When He became her Son.  But if you don’t believe in His doctrines on Mary, I suggest you stop filling the comments with arguments on Catholicism and go study the Scriptures with a heart open to the truth.”  You said earlier that JESUS gave us doctrine concerning Mary.  I will follow your advice.  What are these doctrines and in which Gospel passages of Jesus do I find them?

Diane: I think the case in Green Bay, which is what Jimmy’s post was really about, serves as a good example of the lack of bickering, disagreement, dissent, and division so dominant in Medjugorje discussions.

You just can’t resist taking any shot at Medj. can you?  ... and then accuse others of “bickering” when they simply are defending their own personal experiences and the true history as well as the current position of the Church towards the pilgrims.

And speaking of “bickering” ... to this day Fatima, well approved and well known, still has its multi conspiracy theorists “bickering” with the others as well as the Church re: Church’s final interpretation of secrets, Sr. Lucy’s statements, and on and on.  You, Diane, at least should be an equal opportunity “bickerer” criticizer and include the well known and well approved apparition sites of history as well as THE only one of your choice!!! 

Pilgrim, you have done yeoman’s work in defending humbly the facts.

Diane:  True. He is a member of the CDF.  It’s interesting how the German language edition of Vatican Radio interpreted Cardinal Schonborn’s letter to Bishop Peric as an apology (that is a google translate, but you can see a better translation here by Richard Chonak). That fax from Schonborn to Bishop Peric came directly from Rome, immediately following a meeting with the Pope.  I believe that followed a regular meeting of CDF members (it would have been even more interesting to be a fly on the wall in that meeting).
.
Yes, we all wish you were a fly on so many of those walls ... then perhaps we could get something other than gossip and your personal projections upon others when you know nothing of what truly was said or even implied.  Again, after what you assume was some kind of reprimand of a well respected Cardinal, it seems to have not made too much of an impression on him nor his brother bishops nor even the one whom you suspect took him to the wood shed since he went right on to entertain the visionaries and a crowd of medj. supporters in his own Cathedral, knowing it would obviously gain clear attention and be recorded.
.
The thing we do know from such communication that you point to is that Peric was rude to the Cardinal and the Cardinal was polite in his response to Peric.  People certainly noticed the difference in approaches.  Inhospitality vs suffering of such ill manners!

Diane:  Since Bishop Peric posted this on the diocesan website, where the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal William Levada, can see exactly what he said, (ditto for Cardinal Amato who is on the commission, I am very inclined to see his statement as credible.

.

So what?  The Bishop has always been given the right to his personal opinion and what he desires over his parishes.  But he still has not the authority over the Medj. phenomena itself and if you wish to make these past opinions and orders over a parish - that must not interfere with the study by the Commission, btw - some kind of current Church condemnation or different guidelines for those going to the site of that study, you are stepping way out of bounds yourself.  The bishop has been far less considerate to those in authority over him who have advised him about his loud public “opinions” than his authorities have been towards him.

To ALL:

What precisely is needed for a person to be justified before God?  What precisely is “The Good News” and what is “The Great Commission”?

PLEASE, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, AS YOU COULD EXPLAIN IT TO A CHILD.  NO REAMS OF CATECHISM.  RE: Scripture verses, please use sparingly & the BEST ones to answer just those three simple questions.

The great commission is what Jesus gave to his apostles: to share the word of God, the Gospel which was foretold by the prophets beforehand and fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.  Of course that involves their faith in the Lord Jesus as the Christ.  That fulfillment IS the good news…that long awaited Savior of mankind.
.

What precisely is needed for a person to be justified before God?
.
God’s unfathomable Mercy and acceptance thereof.

Thank you, Rose!

“to share the word of God, the Gospel…” ...and the word, of course, is found in the Bible.

““to share the word of God, the Gospel…” ...and the word, of course, is found in the Bible.”
.
As interpreted by Holy Mother Church through Her magesterium (the living teaching) through apostolic succession from the time Christ instituted the Church to this day.
.
And through the Word, the Living Christ, by Whom God has spoken definitively, the Word of God, Jesus Christ, whom we know and experience in the Sacraments of the Church.
.
This is the fullness of the Gospel, the great commission which we experience and share :)

P.S. I say the above as a convert and former bible only protestant minister with thanks that understanding sacred Scripture is no longer for me so narrow and limited and faulty a thing as my own interpretation.

“The real Blessed Virgin Mary would lead you to show love and respect for Bishop Peric - even though he is opposed. It is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit to show such visible contempt for legitimate Church hierarchy involved with this case.”

Benedicta (Benoite) was instructed by Our Lady of Laus to correct a priest, saying that he cannot order the Queen of Heaven. Benedicta went to the priest, and with humility and charity instructed him. The manner or spirit in which she instructed the priest is often overlooked by the fanatics, who only wish to use the instance of correction of a priest to justify disobedience against the Church.

To Kim and Maureen,
I don’t know when the rules changed here in the USA but in other countries America is one continent and not two.  I know that this is what is being taught in schools here in the USA but it is not what is being taught in other s countries of the same continent.

When you travel to Mexico or another Latin American country the US Embassy has a note telling the citizens of the USA not to say that they come from “America” instead they should say the USA. 

The Spanish usage has not changed at all for it is the English usage that has adopted a word in Spanish “Las Americas” to try to compensate for the usage by the USA of the continent’s name “America” for its own name.

I don’t know how old are you Maureen but long long long looooong time ago people were taugth that there was only one continent in this hemisphere and it was called “America”. 

The social studies books here in the USA give mixed information.  Some say that Central America is part of North America and others say that Central America is part of South America.  It seems that they can’t make up their minds on where to put Central America.  Some books have totally omitted Central America. 

See, America, the continent is geographically divided in parts, North America, Central America and South America plus the Caribbean. 

If the name of the continent was truly Las Americas then Central America should be Central Americas, North America should be North Americas, and South America should be South Americas but it is not because the continent is America and subdivisions of the one continent are North, South and Central America.

This is why the appartion of Wisconsin is the first Church approved in the United States of America but about the fourth in the continent of America.

I have not been able to find an official office with the name “America” like for example the American Passport or the American Army or the Dept of Agriculture of America. Wonder why.

I can only find the following:

The U.S Post office, the U.S. Army, the U.S. passport, the U.S. Government,
the U.S. Airforce, Dept. of the U.S. Treasure, U.S. Immigration Services, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, U.S. Census, etc…

May our Lady of Guadalupe and our Lady of Help protect us.

Apprehensions aren’t approved unless the Pope says it’s true.

If and when the Virgin shows up in my backyard, I’ll let you know.

The Pope approves anxiety or fear that something bad or unpleasant will happen, i.e. apprehensions? That’s awesome.

What happens if the Pope issues a denial.  Is it then not true?

@New Observer: A denial of an apprehension or of an apparition (which is what I have to guess LRoy actually meant)?
.
In either case, you really need to stop bating people and telling Catholics not to cite Catholic teaching on a Catholic site and telling them if they had an open heart they would search the Scriptures.
.
What happens if your version of what the Scripture alone teaches is different from a fellow separated brethren’s version of what is truly taught from Scriptures alone? Whose authority should one follow, yours or the other protestant who disagrees with you based on Scripture alone? Can you show me where in the bible the bible itself clearly and plainly says the bible alone is the Christian’s final authority for faith and practice?
.
What if this web site was for Catholics to interact with other Catholics and not for protestants to troll for souls? If you were sincere and yourself had an open heat and mind it would be different but you are trolling and you know it.
.
And no, actually, you won’t be bating me. I was a protestant with an open heart and an open mind because Our Lord was able to lead me into the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic Church He established for all time.
.
Dude, I know you are salivating but please, don’t bother, I won’t be bated and even so, this thread isn’t the place for it. Troll on somewhere else. Cheers.

Owen, please make sure you are quoting the CORRECT person as well as falsely attributing comments never written.

Jimmy,

Have you done a blog on the so-called “Laus prophecy”, i.e., the prophecy that Laus would be forgotten until the end of the world?

Your commentary on it would be appreciated, and might help quelch the fear in some Christian hearts.
Also, here’s some of my thoughts on prophecies:
2000’s: End of the World? I think not!
Prophecies of Suffering, Trials, and Tribulation

By the way, I was banned from both boards for uncharitable posts (which I made mostly out of anger). Pray for me, a poor sinner.

@New Observer
You are correct. My sincere apology to you. Clearly the words belong to Nick whom you were quoting and whom, clearly, I should have been addressing. Thank you for your charitable response.

Owen wrote:

Posted by Owen on Saturday, Dec 11, 2010 9:01 PM (EDT):” P.S. I say the above as a convert and former bible only protestant minister with thanks that understanding sacred Scripture is no longer for me so narrow and limited and faulty a thing as my own interpretation.”

My reply-
I don’t understand how you could have been a non-Catholic minister, and yet found sacred Scripture to be narrow and limited to your own faulty interpretation.  First, the road to salvation IS narrow, and the path IS found in Scripture.

Secondly, we never, ever are to interpret Scripture for ourselves, but rather, we are to embrace the faith AS TAUGHT to us by the apostles, and handed down to us.  The TRUTHS do not change.  The Bible is not that difficult to understand.

When even the Magesterium ADDS dogma to the Bible (under the guise of explaining it further or clarifying beliefs that are 2,000 years old…) then we MUST say, “Wait a minute!”  We must at least question them.  We can not and must not just accept NEW DOCTRINE, hook, line and sinker, without TESTING it, and seeing if it holds firm to Scripture.  The Bible is the Gold Standard of Measure, not the Bishops of the Day.

When we meet Jesus face to Face, we will answer for our own lives alone, and how we related to and accepted Him.  We will not bring our parish priest along, and whine that the man taught us mistruths.  It will be our own responsibility, and the time to get it RIGHT is now, while we have breath and there is time.  Nothing is more important than to work out our eternal salvation HERE AND NOW, securing that our names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, and that we KNOW Him, prepared to see Him and to live with Him forever.

It seems to me that there is far too much intellectual exercising here and not enough listening to the facts of the million + of people who have gone there and have spread a newborn faith to others.  Conversions, healings, are not the work of an evil entity.  Get real!  Watch this BBC Documentary recently produced.  See the childlike faith Our Lady asks of us, and the unexpected supernatural surprises to bolster weak faith or new faith.

http://www.medjugorje.ws/en/videos/bbc-pilgrims-medjugorje/1

These people are truly moved and changed, which is what should happen to all people of faith, through daily conversion.  It is a process, not a one time event.  The Holy Father Benedict XVI recently spoke to a group from Croatia during his Wednesday audience in this report:

“And most recently, during the General Audience, when the Pope greets pilgrims in their own language, who are visiting Rome, he smiled during his mention of Medjugorje. At 12:25, Wednesday, December 1, 2010, when this picture was taken, he looked up from his notes, smiled and raised his right hand in response to the cheering of the Croatian audience members, as he addressed them with the following words:

“I am greeting all of the Croatian pilgrims from my heart, and especially those from the parish of St. James of Medjugorje. Your pilgrimage to Rome is part of the preparation for the coming of the Lord. Therefore, in hope, be evangelizers of God’s love in your nation. Praised be Jesus and Mary!”

Psychologically speaking, if the Pope were against Medjugorje and seeking to denounce it, as some people believe he is, Medjugorje would hardly elicit his smile and his blessing. There is no reason the pope would choose to single out pilgrims from Medjugorje, say that their pilgrimage is part of the preparation for the coming of the Lord, much less encourage them to evangelize, if he feared Medjugorje was an unholy place spreading errors across the globe. It would be virtually impossible for a man of integrity, such as the pope, to display such favorable gestures and words, if his heart were against, or even skeptical, of Medjugorje.”

Someday all will know the truth, and hopefully repent of all the doubt that was cast upon the work of Our Lord through His Most Blessed Mother, to bring people back to Him, Who is All we need and all we want. I was an athiest, not looking for God, but Our Lady brought me to Her Son through Medjugorje, so all I can think of anyone who speaks the way I have been reading from the detractors’ words is that they have lost their minds.  I pray you will be found as I was….

Wow, Sharon just proved Diane’s post on the Medjugorje fanatics.

You fanatics make the supporters of Medjugorje look really bad.

Hi Cradle Catholic,

My turn to be misunderstood this time, which is fair. :)

You write, “Secondly, we never, ever are to interpret Scripture for ourselves, but rather, we are to embrace the faith AS TAUGHT to us by the apostles, and handed down to us.  The TRUTHS do not change.  The Bible is not that difficult to understand.”
.
Correct and the total lack of that understanding and perspective on my part as a protestant minister is precisely what made my interpretation of the bible narrow and faulty.  Protestants believe that the bible is clear and totally self interpreting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to each individual believer in Christ. As I stated a prime weakness of this and that which puts the lie to such an unbiblical doctrine is that so many protestants disagree with one another including regarding the essentials of the faith. When one stands apart from the teaching authority of the Church one is not merely sola Scripture but sola along. :)  I hope that clarifies your main question.
.
However, in another regard, if I understand your meaning correctly, I am afraid you contradict yourself. By saying that we are not to trust the magesterium for the living magesterium you contract what you affirmed that is that “the faith AS TAUGHT to us by the apostles, and handed down to us” which is correct. In fact we are, as faithful Catholics to use sound reason yes, and have faith in the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures as imparted to us by the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome and all those bishops and priests faithful to and in communion with Rome which continues to this present day.
.
As to “new dogma” the term is an oxymoron. Dogma is that established body of unchangable truth. What has happened, though to any great deal in the several hundred years is that the Church will pronounce dogmatically what it has always believed and taught. One correctly sees this not so much as new dogma but an affirmation and declaration of, again, that which She has always taught as truth, (usually to counter serious error from within or outside the Church working against Her).
.
You wrote, “When we meet Jesus face to Face, we will answer for our own lives alone, and how we related to and accepted Him.  We will not bring our parish priest along, and whine that the man taught us mistruths.  It will be our own responsibility, and the time to get it RIGHT is now,”
.
Yes, we shall and it is that reality which, in part, motivated me to convert to the Catholic Church where I can form my conscience in accord with the true Church Jesus Christ instituted 2000 years ago.
.
God bless and a happy Gaudete Sunday to you.

Correcting some faulty editing on my part. A paragraph in the comment of mine above to “Cradle Catholic” should read:
.
“However, in another regard, if I understand your meaning correctly, I am afraid you contradict yourself. By saying that we are not to trust the magesterium you contract what you affirmed when you said “the faith AS TAUGHT to us by the apostles, and handed down to us”; which is correct. In fact we are, as faithful Catholics to use sound reason yes, and have faith in the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures as imparted to us by the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome and all those bishops and priests faithful to and in communion with Rome which continues to this present day.”
.
Also, problematic, by addition, is the claim “The TRUTHS do not change. The Bible is not that difficult to understand.”
.
To the first part, Cradle says the truths do not change but then claims the Church creates “new dogma.” I addressed that in my first comment.
.
To the second part, to say that “the Bible is not that difficult to understand” is to enter into precisely the protestant problem of interpreting sacred Scripture. I did address this in part but it may have been lost in the overall comment, so, again: If the Bible were a self interpreting bookt that is not that difficult to understand while find protestants disagree with Catholics we might expect to find them all agreeing with one another based on their school of interpretation, sola scriptura - the Bible alone. Secondly, if the Bible were so easy to understand we would, as believers, have little need or at least a great deal less need of the Church to interpret the canon of Scripure. In fact, the Church, the bullwark and pillar of our faith, was aiding those first new Christians to understand fully the only sacred writings they had at the time, which was what we think of today as the Old Testament and to learn and accept the teachings of Christ via the Apostles as we see especially but not exclusively in 1 Thes2:13, 2 Tim1:13, 2 Tim2:2, 1 Pet1:25.
.
All of which I imagine Cradle, as cradle Catholic knows (being sincere not taking a shot) but just found myself dewlling on in response to her/his question.
.
And now this thread should probably return to the actual topic at hand :)

Good witness, Sharon. Here’s another witness by a priest in a letter he wrote following his first ever visit to Medjugorje.

“Dear Pilgrim, Where do I start? Perhaps a very sincere thank you for the wonderful invitation to accompany your group to Medjugorje.

“I had my doubts to begin with, wondering if I would be able to cope with the journey and the heat. But Our Lady saw me through. It was such a revelation to me, about myself and the faith of so many people, young and not so young.

“When I got back home I was tired, but felt so renewed and affirmed. I just could not believe that God and Our Lady could use this broken instrument in so many ways. I kept wondering: ‘Is this really me?’ as the Lord enabled me to find words to speak to so many different people and address their problems.

“I am now facing, once again, the reality of daily life and am trying, with Our Lady’s help to build on what she gave me in Medjugorje.

“I look forward to the reunion and with God’s help further pilgrimages. Many, many thanks. I have received so much from the pilgrimage. You are all in my daily prayers and I hope to offer Mass weekly for all the group and all those who celebrated Confession with me.”

Yours sincerely, Fr Brendan O’Malley

Owen writes-“Protestants believe that the bible is clear and totally self interpreting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to each individual believer in Christ. As I stated a prime weakness of this and that which puts the lie to such an unbiblical doctrine is that so many protestants disagree with one another including regarding the essentials of the faith. When one stands apart from the teaching authority of the Church one is not merely sola Scripture but sola along. :)  I hope that clarifies your main question.”
The Bible for the most part is quite clear in what it says. That does not mean it does not require some work to understand it. What Protestants do you know that do not believe Christ is God and died for our sins? Or that the God is not trinitarian in nature? These are essential doctrines and protestants do agree on the essentials.
Now, I know the Catholic church claims to be the only authority to correctly interpret the Scripture. The problem is that it has never done so. There is no such thing in the Catholic church as an infallible-offical interpretation of the verses and the passages of the Scriptures.
I wonder if I asked 10 catholic people including its leaders about what are the essentials of the catholic faith if i would get a complete agreement. I suspect not.

@faithful thank you for the opportunity to reply to your concerns.
.
You said, ” What Protestants do you know that do not believe Christ is God and died for our sins? Or that the God is not trinitarian in nature? These are essential doctrines and protestants do agree on the essentials.”
.
I never said nor implied that protestants do not believe in Christ Jesus as Lord and Saviour. In fact the topic never came up. However, now it has. In fact I referred to protestants as our separated-brethren because I believe that protestant do believe that Christ is God and that Christ died for the sins of mankind but they, by other essential doctrines and practices separate themselves from Holy Mother Church. Separated brethren is a term used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to state its historic teaching that all those baptized according to the Trinitarian formula are indeed true Christians and as such members of the Church (whether they accept that fact or not) even if separated by other belief and practice of their own choosing or indeed in the case of mere ignorance a person has through no fault of their own has never heard accurate Catholic teaching.
.
It because the Catholic Church fully recognized my protestant Trinitarian baptism as valid, because it was a Trinitarian baptism that when my family converted the Catholic Church would not ‘re’ baptize us as She sees our Trinitarian baptism as authentic. In fact it is the vast majority of protestants who call into question whether or not a Catholic was ever a real Christian and do not recognize the Trinitarian baptism of the Catholic Church hence they often make the grave error of baptizing again those who convert from the Catholic Church to a protestant sect.
.....
Next, you ask what protestants are there who do not believe in the Trinity? You meaning being that there are none. I wish you were right but you are not right. There are a number of sects (and I am not including cults which are not Christian in any way, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but restrict my self here to the group of people were are speaking of, protestant Christians) that are non-Trinitarian and, ironically (and this was my central point) they determine this from what they believe to be the bible’s “clear” teaching that God is One and that Trinity does not appear in any bible verse.  Commonly they are referred to as “Jesus only” protestants but it’s actually a heresy much older than the past 500 years. To name but one such sect: the United Pentecostal Church. Your assertion that all protestants believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is false. However, if one were to finesse your statement to say that those who claim to be protestants but do not believe in the Trinity are actually a cult and not at all Christian then you might have a point though, no doubt, you will deeply offend my uncle-in-law who is a United Pentecostal minister and a devout Christian.
.
P.S. Have a look at the UPCIdotORG site under 60Questions if you are interested in a from the horses mouth look at a non-Trinitarian non-Catholic, protestant position. “2.  Does the Bible say that there are three persons in the Godhead? No.” But there are 59 more points. Enjoy.
.
“Now, I know the Catholic church claims to be the only authority to correctly interpret the Scripture. The problem is that it has never done so.” That’s quite the contradiction you’ve just made. Aside from that, please show me where the Catholic Church has not made this claim.
.....
You said, “I wonder if I asked 10 catholic people including its leaders about what are the essentials of the catholic faith if i would get a complete agreement. I suspect not.”
.
I suspect not either if we are talking about those Catholics who, regardless of their vocation, have been poorly catechised or not taught in any formal way at all. In that sense, yes, I would agree with you. We see plenty of such right here in these discussion threads.
.
This poor or absent catechises is in no small part due to the fall out and delusion among the Church’s members since since but not because of Vatican II as well as by various attempts by those not properly reflecting the teachings of that Council to falsely protestantize the Mass.
.
However, the Church stands distinct from her members and has not erred. For instance when the Church dogmatically declares in the Creed that there is, one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church She does well not to say all Her members are necessarily holy all the time but the Church itself/Herself is holy and does not err. In a similar way we may correctly say, as you correctly note, any individual baptized Catholic (and this may be extended to groups of same) at any level from the laity to the hierarchy may error in their understanding and in their teaching (we can both no doubt think of many sad contemporary examples). However, this is distinct from the Church proper and its teaching including its accurate interpretation of the sacred canon She gave us.
.....
You state, ” There is no such thing in the Catholic church as an infallible-offical interpretation of the verses and the passages of the Scriptures.” Ah, you have forgotten or are unaware of the 21 Councils that have pronounced infallibly on what is truth and what is heresy specifically from chapter and verse of sacred Scripture, as well as quite literally thousands of thousands of official documents and writings over the past 2000 years.
.....
You say, “The Bible for the most part is quite clear in what it says. That does not mean it does not require some work to understand it.”
.
This is quite honest and generous of you - I am not being factitious - because many protestants do indeed try to deny or they pretend that they have nothing in place that is anything like say the Catechism of the Catholic Church in aiding the Christian to understand the Bible and the teachings of their sect. Each of the early “Reformers” wrote huge volumes on how the Bible was to be understood, according to them. Indeed, and not without some sense of ironic humour we note the very same of Luther himself. You see, while many protestants so revile the Church for what they wrongly identify as ‘the traditions of men’ they to have their own human traditions and teachers and thus their own teachers of men - again, to make the central point, who so often in their brief 500 year history have strongly disagreed with one another - to the point of forming new sect upon new sect - based solely on interpretation of the Bible alone, sola Scriptura.
.
When, theologically, one speaks about the Bible being clear one means it is self-interpreting, a protestant notion that the Bible totally explains itself completely such that any person, along with the Holy Spirit may sit down with a Bible and understand it fully. Clearly this is not a reality for protestants any more than it is for Catholics.
.
Best regards in your journey as a Christian towards truth whether you are a Catholic or a non Catholic Christian. There are excellent resources available in print and online for anyone genuinely inquiring about the teachings and the teaching Authority of the Church that will help you go well beyond what one is able to convey in the thrust and parry combox environment. God bless you.

Owen, quit feeding the troll.

Faithful, troll somewhere else.

Being an immigrant from Belgian I visited multiple times Banneux and Beauraing. In BANNEUX   we venerate “OUR LADY of the POOR”, our Lady in BEAURAING has the title"THE VIRGIN WITH THE GOLDEN HEART”.
Please could you correct the mixup of the titles of Our Lady in your article.
BANNEUX : OUR LADY OF THE POOR
BEAURAING : OUR LADY WITH THE GOLDEN HEART.
THANK YOU. MAY HER IMMACULATE HEART SOON BE VICTORIOUS !!!!!!!!!!!!
Rita Biesemans
Happy Santa Lucia, December 13

@Nick, fair enough. On the chance that there is even a partial genuine inquiry being made I replied. However, fair enough.

Nick- I object to your having called people a disparaging name.  I was reading Owen’s response to my post with interest, and was reading Faithful’s comments to it, and then I came across your comment.

It is very discouraging for me, a Cradle Catholic trying to learn more about my Christian faith, to read an uncharitable remark about a fellow Christian.

Your having name-called reminds me of the “tolerant” left wing liberals that resort to bashing someone *personally*, when they can’t respond to a valid position that differs with theirs.

It amounts to censorship, because when that happens to me, a conservative Catholic, that is Pro-Life and supports marriage between one man and one woman only, when I write one little letter to the editor about it, in any newspaper (secular, and believe it or not: even my diocese), I will get personally CREAMED in several letters in response by angry letter writers that call me ignorant, intolerant and a bigot.

So please let’s all remain civil.  I would like to hear more of what Faithful and Owen have to say, uncensored.  They seem like nice Christian brothers/sisters, and we have a First Amendment right to speak out (at least for now, Canada lost its right already); we should LISTEN to them.

Owen writes-“You state, ” There is no such thing in the Catholic church as an infallible-offical interpretation of the verses and the passages of the Scriptures.” Ah, you have forgotten or are unaware of the 21 Councils that have pronounced infallibly on what is truth and what is heresy specifically from chapter and verse of sacred Scripture, as well as quite literally thousands of thousands of official documents and writings over the past 2000 years.”
What these councils pronounced is not the same thing as interpreting Scripture. There is no such work in the last 2000 years that you can point to that is the offical and infallible interpretation of the Scriptures. 2ndly, there are contradictory writings of what some fathers believed in comparison to what the Catholic church teaches today. Take the immaculate conception of Mary. There were fathers and popes who believed she was not sinless.

Dear ‘faithful’, you said “What these councils pronounced is not the same thing as interpreting Scripture.”
.
That’s interesting conjecture. You base this personal opinion on what, your own authority? Perhaps on some verse in the scriptures? One of the primary things the Councils did was to define and clarify, repeatedly, the correct interpretation of scripture. So, frankly, you are quite wrong but do tell on what authority you base your conjecture, your own or a particular chapter or verse of sacred Scripture?
....
You add, “There is no such work in the last 2000 years that you can point to that is the offical and infallible interpretation of the Scriptures.”
.
While you neatly avoid the context of my comment let me address this nonetheless. Sadly your ignorance of the Council is showing the more. The examples of the Church’s “official and infallible interpretation of Scriptures”  that may be pointed to are in fact so many, so very many that I refrain from even beginning to cite them in this limited combox space. However, the documents of the Councils are readily available on line for the sincere inquirer and their dogmatic, that is to say infallible, pronouncements on the interpretation of Scripture are themselves plentiful Scripture citations. You may like to begin at newadvent.org and search ‘Church Councils’ then follow the multitude of internal links. This will occupy you for many hours and be a benefit to your mind and your soul.
...
Next you assert, “2ndly, there are contradictory writings of what some fathers believed in comparison to what the Catholic church teaches today. Take the immaculate conception of Mary. There were fathers and popes who believed she was not sinless.”
.
You (perhaps intentionally?) miss what has already been said about the difference in nature of the authority authority of any particular individual Christian and that of the Apostolic Authority of a Church Council to interpret and pronounce dogma.
.
To the first part, yes we do find certain Church Fathers disagreeing with one another in their writings on various matters as the human comprehension of divinely revealed truth develops however, all those truly faithful to the Church and this includes faithful Church Fathers placed themselves and their own opinion and interpretations in submission to the authority of the Church as expressed in the Councils.
.
To the second part, please show me the popes who did not believe Mary was sinless.
.
Pope Sixtus IV didn’t define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as dogma (though, again, that it was a doctrine generally held by the Church, Her faithful including theologians and reflected in Her practice and liturgy go back to the first 100 years AD) he extended to the entire Latin/Western Church the feast of the Immaculate Conception (celebrated for hundreds of years prior in many parts of the Christian world and itself indicative of the doctrine’s adherence). The Council of Trent affirmed the doctrine (again the point of the authority of the Church over the ‘authority’ of any particular individual) and in 1854 Pope Pius IX, speaking with Apostolic Authority declared the centuries old doctrine to be dogma and all of that was with the Church’s constant attention to the sacred Scriptures which is the source of that infallible truth.
....
As you have introduced into the discussion the doctrine and dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the sinlessness of Mary you will be interested to note that Martin Luther held throughout his life to both the perpetual virginity of Mary as an article of faith to be held by all Christians (citing Galatians 4:4 and writing “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin”) by way of asserting, as does the Catholic Church declare, that Christ could not be merely a man but fully divine also as “born of a woman” alone (no human father). Of even more particular interest to you will be the fact that Luther also held to his death bed the belief in the Immaculate Conception. His own defining of the doctrine is not a clear as the Church by his own hand we have his belief as an article of faith for all Christians that Mary’s soul was devoid of sin from the beginning.
.
Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary’s divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning.
.
“But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin.” - Martin Luther
.
Dear ‘faithful’ while I would like to say I look forward to your addressing those things you have notably left untouched from my repsonse to your questions (including those avoided by you in your response to me regarding my reply ‘Cradle Catholic’) as well as seeing your answers to the very direct questions I have asked of you here, this will have to be my last comment as I head into the remainder of the week with a heavy schedule. This gives you the privilege of having the final word should you want it.
.
I hope you are not merely trolling, as Nick thinks, but that whether you are a protestant brother of mine in Christ or a very confused fellow Catholic you are a sincere inquirer after the Lord. If so, as you continue to journey, you will find the Church He established not only prevails against the gates of hell but embraces all His adopted children for eternity. God be with you.
.
Also, to ‘Cradle Catholic’ God bless you as you continue to grow, thanks again for thoughts and hey, on being what is now commonly being referred to as being a ‘conservative Catholic’—which in essence means being one who is faithful to the teachings of the Church and which by nature includes being pro-life and pro-traditional marriage—this Canadian Catholic is with you 100% :)

Owen asks-”... To the second part, please show me the popes who did not believe Mary was sinless..”
Augustine Bishop of Hippo “Whatever flesh of sin Jesus took, He took of the flesh of the sin of his mother. Jesus did not partake of sin, but took of his mother, which came under the judgment of sin.”
Augustine “ He, Christ alone, being made man but remaining God never had any sin, nor did he take of the flesh of sin. Though He took flesh of the sin of his mother.”
Pope innocent the third (1216 a.d.) “She (Eve) was produced without sin, but she brought forth in sin, she (Mary) was produced in sin, but she brought forth without sin.” ( De festo Assump., sermon 2)

Pope Leo 1 (440 a.d.) “The Lord Jesus Christ alone among the sons of men was born immaculate”(sermon 24 in Nativ. Dom.).
.N.D. Kelly comments:

“Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.” (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 493)”

The reason I bring this up is that the Catholic church does change and what it teaches at times is not in harmony with Scripture. The immaculate conception of Mary is a case in point. Its not taught in Scripture and in fact denies what Scripture clearly teaches that all men (including Mary) are sinners.
Councils can be wrong and are wrong on this. Remember, Jesus never promised the church could never err.

Owen and Faithful —a very interesting dialog and thank you for your scholarship.  Two of the points raised have always been open questions for myself and a few others I know over the years.  One pertains to Mary’s “perpetual” viginity.  There are a great many Catholics who believe that Jesus did, in fact, have brothers (natural) and not just in terms of the brothers being “brethren.”  Certain Bible translations seem to imply Jesus had (natural) brothers while other translations refer to the brothers as the “brethern.”  Given the supposition that Jesus did not have naturalized “brothers” born of Mary, (which I was taught and believe), logically, then,—and still, do we think that God would have granted marriage to Joseph—as her husband, and then denied him due benefits of marriage?  Is it logical to assume that Joseph and Mary never had sexual relations?  Ever.  This is the position we must hold of assuming the belief of “perpetual” viginity.  I have never found Luther to have addressed this issue, however I could be in error.

The second question pertains to Mary having been born absent of sin.  The contrary argument to this is her own declaration to Gabriel in her Magnificat:  “My soul rejoices in God—MY—Savior.”  She is not declaring the world’s or earth’s savior—but her own.  It seems this is an admission on her own part that she, indeed, needs to be saved.  The thrust of this argument is then that were she not a sinner, Mary would have no need to rejoice—“in a Savior.”  I am uncertain of the Protestant position regarding this aspect of Mary and sin, but the Catholic position here seems a bit cloudy once we factor Mary’s own response.  Thanks in advance for any comments or new information you can provide.

Faithful
.
Alas, while I wanted to stay away your simply demands at least one more go.
.
You are proof texting, especially the Augustine quote. You would do well to place that within it’s proper context, his opus, and then you will find it hard to make his words say what you desire.
.
The pope quotes; thanks for attempting to answer my challenge there. Without detailing and defending these particular quotes I would return you once again to the matter you continue to avoid, and you must avoid it in order to force the point you attempt to make namely, the difference between any individual Christian’s interpretation and the actual Apostolic Authority of the Church to pronounce infallibly, this includes popes. Every word, every sermon, ever writing that comes from the mouth or pen of a pope is not infallible and the Church does not teach this. So, there is no problem, no contradiction there.
.
You continue to avoid the question of on what authority you base your claim? You imply your base of authority is the Scripture, by way of a negative affirmation, “is not found in Scripture.” You’re going in circles. You have yet to make it clear why anyone should accept your authority on what the Scriptures say let alone your interpretation of Church history. Citing Origen affords nothing as the differing views of early and later theologians in respect to actual Authority of the Church to pronounce infallibly in her official documents and Councils has been addressed as has the developmental nature of theology.
.
Again, ouu have not yet defended the position of sola scriptura *from the Bible itself* (which you continue to avoid), nor have you sufficiently answered why protestants differ in understanding of the ‘plain meaning’ of Scripture and on very core matters (such as I cited in the “Trinity” or for another example, the nature and necessity of baptism for salvation eg. the Salvation Army does not baptize period) each basing their authority to pronounce interpretation based on Scripture alone. The matter of a bible-only interpretation of the Scriptures, is is at its core is a matter of Authority (indeed of how the Bible as it is today came into our hands, that is to say, by way of the Church’s apostolic authority to define what is canon) which in turn is at the core of every discussion on interpretation of the Bible and of doctrine and which makes continued discussion of any particular issue just shy of fruitless.
.
You haven’t spent any time reviewing even the single comprehensive source I gave you where you will find, perhaps not to your bias but nonetheless factual, you will find Scriptural support for the doctrine is based solidly on Scripture and you will find it’s historic development. However, I think I understand you a little clearer and your anti-Catholicism card is beginning to show over your I’m just a reasonable guy/girl looking for a reasoned answer.
.
If you are saying, show me the verse that says “Immaculate Conception” as proof of the doctrine being solidly and prominently based in Scripture then you also need also to look be able to show “Trinity” in the Bible, another doctrine you quite wrongly state is universally accepted among all Christians though one which you and I and the Church solidly affirm as essential. In like manner you will also need to show where in the Bible appear the words ‘Personal’ Savior or ‘once saved always saved’ (unless you are a protestant who on the basis of the authority of Scripture alone differs from many of your fellow protestants who teach it is possible to loose one’s salvation on the basis of the authority of Scripture alone), and you will need to find the verse with the words ‘believer baptism’ or ‘adult baptism.’ Even if you can find any other those you will then need to show how the authority of any protestant sect over any other protestant sect, let alone any protestant sect over the Catholic Church, has the greater authority by which it is correct since all protestants begin everything with the base of sola-scriptura.
.
You will be able, in most translations, to find the phrase, ‘faith alone’ but that will not aid your word proof text need for proving the authority of the bible alone because in James 2:24 we have, “You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”
.
Not By Faith Alone, interestingly enough happens to be the title of a book by our column host, Jimmy Akin.

@New Observer, your questions can be answered well and conclusively from a solid Catholic position. I regret I haven’t the time to engage further in a detailed answer and am somewhat loath to answer only briefly as a short answer lends itself to confusion on the one hand and to intentional mishandling on the other. However your questions are good…
.
Regarding Luther, please see above where it is clear Luther held to the time of his death, the firm belief that Mary was sinless. He held this as an article of faith that all Christians are to believe.
.
Mary needed the Savior just as any other human needs the Savior and, as you note, we see her thanks conveyed in her Magnificat. However, we understand from Church teaching and sacred Scripture (again, contrary to ‘faithful’s’ assertion there is no contradiction there) something theologians have called *preeminent grace*; the same Divine Grace made available to all mankind and by which alone are we saved through faith (contrary to the common anti-Catholic claim, Catholicism teaches we are saved by grace but oh my, another diet of worms there) came to Mary, the future absolutely pure vessel of the Word Incarnate, before/at the precise moment of her conception. She was, like any of us, in need of being delivered from the stain of Original sin and was saved from it by Jesus Christ but in a manner different than any other human. As one theologian put it, and I am sorry I honestly forget who just now; We all need to be delivered from the pit, we after falling in, Mary by being prevented from falling in at all. Imagine this, you and I walk along and fall into the pit of sin, Jesus comes and by his grace lifts us out, a saving we received by grace through faith. As Mary entered this world, under than same curse as all humankind subsequent the Fall, she was pre-vented from even approaching that pit, she was saved before she could fall into it. Going on in life she received that saving act of grace through faith and perhaps never more was her faith in this matter evident but than when the angel Gabriel announced to her that she was, by the mystery and power of the Holy Spirit to be the Mother of God. How could she accept this in any way without the knowledge, a most humbling knowledge indeed, that she being without sin, was in any way worthy of this?
.
But interestingly the ancient doctrine, held by the Church from earliest times, again reflected in the earliest liturgy, is not *about* Mary but rather, as has been said in a comment above to ‘faithful’ and conveniently ignored by same, this doctrine was about elevating the divinity of Christ, the understanding of Christ in his hypostatic union was not born of any man and was truly fully God yet fully man.
.....
As to Jesus brothers, it is the protestant who makes something of nothing here, but needs to make something of it in order to prop up other claims not supportable from Scripture. In the interest of time (mine, I admit which is quickly becoming limited now) and in the interest of not repeating poorly what others have said much better may I invite you to reflect on this three short articles:
.
[url=“http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp”>http://www.catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp”>Bad Aramaic Made Easy</a> by one Jimmy Akin no less.
.
<a ]Brethren of the Lord[/url]
.
Does Greek Prove Jesus Had Brothers
.
With that, because of my schedule, I shall continue to read the thread as I can but I cannot respond, though I will likely want to.
.
Before departing…as your journey seems sincere, I highly recommend to you both these editions of the New Testament Scriptures because of the reliable translation and the very detailed and reliable study notes: “The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible” (very inexpensive) and “The Navarre Bible - New Testament Expanded Edition” the single volume NT (*expanded* referring to the extensive notes and large format - it is costly but when one considers one’s faith is priceless it’s worth it. Perhaps there’s a Santa who would bless you ;-) God bless you.

Ooops, apology on the messy links. trying again:

Bad Aramaic Made Easy
.
Brethren of the Lord
.
Does Greek Prove Jesus Had Brothers?
.
Hope that comes out better than my mash-up above.

The reason I bring this up is that the Catholic church does change and what it teaches at times is not in harmony with Scripture. The immaculate conception of Mary is a case in point. Its not taught in Scripture and in fact denies what Scripture clearly teaches that all men (including Mary) are sinners.
Councils can be wrong and are wrong on this. Remember, Jesus never promised the church could never err.

That conclusion itself is in the error of limited human perspective - and without the guidance of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ before he ascended ... that the Mystical Body of Christ on earth will always be guided in its dogmas by the Holy Spirit (who btw is the SPOUSE of the Virgin Mary within scripture itself)...the necessity for Christ to go so that the Spirit could come and continue to lead His followers.  At the same time He prayed for oneness in His Mystical Body and yet men, not God, divided it now into splinters.  God’s own representative/messenger, Gabriel, made the pronouncement, IN SCRIPTURE, that the Woman to be “hailed” by him, as God gave him the words to use, was “Full of Grace” which means “Full of God”.  This had to be pronounced first to establish that this Woman COULD be the Mother of God because she was filled already with Him - not any portion therefore (as in other humans not especially chosen to be the Theotokos - as in the Greek) of this choice of God’s creation had the stain of sin.  From that very happening in scripture to even take place is what the Immaculate Conception is derived from - never could such a chosen Woman EVER have experienced the stain of sin.  And yet, for that, she was dependent upon the act of her own Son, in time, but also in God’s own timelessness and Holy Will.  That also is in scripture - that not one imperfection could live in unity with God.  God’s perfect Man Himself was nourished by this chosen flesh and blood literally.  To demean this purpose of God’s for the very setting of the Incarnation is to fall into heresy and contradict the Holy Spirit, that very Spouse of this Virgin.  To say otherwise knowingly is to sin against the Holy Spirit and neglect the truth in the description of this Union, its timing, it fulfillment in time, as described in Scripture itself.  Thus, being the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, Mary continued in the Spirit always, as before in preparation for her fiat, as is seen in her place as the first and best disciple of her Son - esp. noticed when those disciples of weak faith awaited with her, held up by her, in trust of her own leadership of them BECAUSE they recognized her special privilege over and above their own, for the coming of the Holy Spirit upon themselves at Pentecost.  And the only one who stood with her and did not run away from the Supreme sacrifice of the Beloved was given the privilege by Him of true son and took her in and watched over her as “the” Mother of the rest and of all.  Truly then, this was the New Eve, intended as New Mother of us all….the “Woman” which title was given her by Christ in scripture to declare the “Woman” promised in scripture of old as the one to crush Satan.  She is then our image of Church, perfection in purity once redeemed.

So the Holy Spirit does work in Councils of the Body of Christ founded upon Peter, not to be divided.  It is men, not in the same union with the Truth, who sometimes deliberately misinterpret that inspiration given and written, for their own purposes and through their own weaknesses. Luther, the first outward splinterer that brought about the many following, himself changed the words of scripture to console his own fears and more error followed.  And what was this “new authority” giving them that right? It is only the original authority given by Christ and His intention for unity in that authority, followed in faith, regardless of the well-intentioned but still flawed human division, that matters, and the only way that the promised unity will still come about in the future for the renewal of His original desire for one Body on earth.  This will come about by God’s grace, once again, and not by human endeavor without that Grace and within God’s will, not man’s.

The Holy Spirit is to continue this guidance of greater understanding of scripture, as it continues to be fulfilled beyond the time it was written.  And often in the most unexpected ways - as seen by those who expected another type of Christ than what Jesus offered them.  Even the authors of scripture state that much more could have been written but all the books could not hold it.  It cannot be limited by human “talents” but will continue its proper interpretation by the only body, the Body of Christ on earth, that the gates of hell cannot prevail against BECAUSE its life is the Life of the Holy Spirit Who is not limited in time or by man’s preferences for “perfection”.

Rose,
Please explain more of your post.  You say:
...the Holy Spirit (who btw is the SPOUSE of the Virgin Mary within scripture itself)...”  and “to establish that this Woman COULD be the Mother of God.”

Where in Scripture is Mary called the spouse of the Holy Spirit?  In fact, someone in RCIA class brought this up and the leader could not provide evidence.  Your other point re Mary as mother of God was also a topic in RCIA and yes, she is the incarnate / earthly and human mother of God (Jesus).  However, in eternity past the Son did,—and does not have a mother in the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  If Christ is currently seated at the right hand of the Father (as Scripture says) then this creates a theological problem with some of what you are saying.  I am, however, open to your further explanation if I am not fully understanding you.  Thanks.

Dear New Observer, deaking in briefly:
.
Asking for clarification on Mary as Spouse of the Holy Spirit is a sound question. However, let me begin this way; do you believe in the Holy Trinity? I am sure you do. So, please show me in the Scripture where it says supports that doctrine with the exact word.
.
I don’t mean to test in a mean way, but am pointing out how by asking for the exact phrase or word (rather than the wholeness of a teaching or doctrine as presented by the fullness of Scripture and not merely a proof text) you are falling prey to the classic and unnecessary protestant notion of sola scriptura - the bible only - which has been more than adequately noted in this thread particularly in my responses to ‘faithful.’
.
Have a read here, The Holy Spirit And Mary for a worthy answer to your question showing how that teaching develops from Scripture as a whole and from a reasoned look at what the Early Church believed and practiced (again, keeping in mind that the very Early Church did not have anything close to a complete New Testament yet developed such central doctrines at the Trinity.)
.
If you will read carefully what Rose has said she has already given much of the answer to your question if you are open to it and, again, free of the unnecessary protestant bias.
.
There is no problem with Christ seated at the right hand of the Father for all eternity and at the same time Mary being the Mother of God. She has life everlasting now, as do/will all the adopted children of God have. She has not stopped being therefore she has not stopped being the Mother of Jesus Christ either and, as Jesus has not stopped being fully divine she remains the Mother of God and is by extension the spiritual mother of all Christians, ironically perhaps, including even those who deny her. It is a mystery but it is not a theological problem.
.
Mary as the Mother of God would have been in the mind of the Trinity from before the foundation of the world in the same way that each of us is said to have been known to God from before the foundation of the world. She did not ‘exist’ in any physical sense until her conception, again the same as any of us. She is not the Mother in any sense of preexisting God but because she was God’s chosen vessel for the birth of Jesus who is God she is quite simply the Mother of God. As this great mystery was manifest by the power of the Holy Spirit Mary is in a spiritual sense the partner/Spouse of the Spirit. This title in no way elevates her to the level of God or even of a god. God bless you.

Owen, thanks for the link to Campbell’s article.  True, exact wording is not required for matching all terms Catholics and Protestants often apply to Scripture. Looks like some interesting reading in what Kolbe has to say on this topic. I have printed the article out for review.  Thanks for the reference.

Owen writes-“Dear ‘faithful’, you said “What these councils pronounced is not the same thing as interpreting Scripture.”
. That’s interesting conjecture. You base this personal opinion on what, your own authority? Perhaps on some verse in the scriptures? One of the primary things the Councils did was to define and clarify, repeatedly, the correct interpretation of scripture. So, frankly, you are quite wrong but do tell on what authority you base your conjecture, your own or a particular chapter or verse of sacred Scripture?”
Lets deal with the authority to interpret Scripture. Where did Jesus Himself teach that only the Roman Catholic church has the authority to interpret Scripture? Secondly, the correct interpret interpretation of Scripture does not depend on authority but on the the proper and correct interpretation of it. I have already pointed out to you that the immaculate conception of Mary is not taught in Scripture and actually violates what Paul wrote in Romans 3:9 and 5:12.
  Don’t confuse the Trinitarian doctrine (which has solid support in Scripture) with the non biblical support for the immaculate conception. They are 2 different things and each doctrine must stand on its own.

Posted by Rose on Tuesday, Dec 14, 2010 5:51 PM (EST):” faithful wrote-“The reason I bring this up is that the Catholic church does change and what it teaches at times is not in harmony with Scripture. The immaculate conception of Mary is a case in point. Its not taught in Scripture and in fact denies what Scripture clearly teaches that all men (including Mary) are sinners.
Councils can be wrong and are wrong on this. Remember, Jesus never promised the church could never err.”

Rose wrote-“That conclusion itself is in the error of limited human perspective - and without the guidance of the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ before he ascended ... that the Mystical Body of Christ on earth will always be guided in its dogmas by the Holy Spirit (who btw is the SPOUSE of the Virgin Mary within scripture itself)...the necessity for Christ to go so that the Spirit could come and continue to lead His followers.”
Your statement goes far beyond what Jesus promised His disciples. Nowhere does He teach that the church would be “..guided in its dogmas by the Holy Spirit”.. What He did teach as His apostles did that false teachers would come into the church and decieve many. See 2 Peter 2:1 for example.

New Observer: In regards to Mary having other children consider these points:
1)  There No mention of it in the Scripture.  She nor do any writers claim she was a perpetual virgin. 
2)  The passage in Luke 1:48 in which Mary says she is a virgin does not mean she took a vow of perpetual virginity.  It is only that she is a virgin up to this point in time.
3)  The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching.
4)  When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19
5)  In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood.
6)  There is no hint in Scripture that Joseph was previously married and had children.
7)  Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19.
8)  There are Greek words for cousin—anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36

New Observer:  Where in Scripture is Mary called the spouse of the Holy Spirit?

..

In her reply to the angel - therefore informed consent within her fiat - “how can this be for I know not man” (meaning that even in the future her continuing hopeful intention is to remain a virgin) and the angel replied to reassure her of this intention in union with God’s will that she would be “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit, in union with the Holy Spirit, for this creation union thus becoming a complete mystical spouse of the Holy Spirit, the necessary cooperation in order to carry out this plan of the Father’s will.  This therefore is the “substituted” mystical married spousal union.  Now then, if you wish to find your English wording exact for the reality of the situation then don’t even read scripture in any foreign language or you’ll really find more and even better/closer expressions for the same thing and be completely lost due to being outside of your confined bailiwick!!

.. 

A really good source for Marian history, study and research is the world recognized Marian Library at the U. of Dayton.  For instance:

..

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/meditations/h-spirit.html

..

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/index.html

..

Welcome to The Mary Page

Our goal is to gather and present information about the Virgin Mary and to lead people to a loving knowledge of her. Learning more about Mary, we develop a fuller knowledge of Christ, his Church and Christian life.

..

Owen gave good meaning to your question of “Mary as Mother of God”.  And an example of the “Woman” being in the mind of God prior to this moment in human history is present in prior scriptures/all directed to the Eternal Word (fulfillment of scriptures), OT, referring to just this moment.  This Jesus Christ Who is the Son of God and son of Mary is always “True God and True Man”.  There is that old heresy of Nestorianism of just this sort of human reasoning that wound up having to divide and separate Christ’s natures - disunion.  Of course it is two natures in one Person.  Such reasoning created something in their own minds that was opposed to Jesus Christ’s true reality.  Therefore, without causing disunion, Mary is the “Mother of God”!

Hi ‘faithful’
the conjecture is yours not mine man and instead of answering me directly you play the game of posing my own question to me. I’ve answered while you continue to play games, like this:
.
You ask me if I get my authority from “some verse in the scriptures?” No, you clearly haven’t been listening but if I had answered yes why would that bother you, as a sola-scriptura Christian it would merely be my your authority against mine.
.
You say, “Don’t confuse the Trinitarian doctrine (which has solid support in Scripture) with the non biblical support for the immaculate conception. They are 2 different things and each doctrine must stand on its own.” Again, who says? You? That’s your opinion of what is supportable by Scripture and what is not. You’re still spinning in circles man/woman. And Again, it is clear you haven’t read even the limited sources provided in this thread but wish merely to keep repeating yourself based on your personal bias.
.
Again you avoid direct questions.
.
And you finish up by citing Scripture, by your own authority to interpret them, as support for what’s supportable and what isn’t which once again avoids the central issue of Authority.
.
Friend, I have no problem at all with you holding to sola Scriptura and not believing in the doctrines taught by sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition, the living Magesterium of the Catholic Church. I once believed protestant doctrine but didn’t troll Catholic discussions trying to convert anyone or make little of the beliefs of others.
.
May the Lord bless you and keep you and make his face to shine upon you as you continue to walk in the light of his Word and his person. It would be lovely to have you along benefiting from the graces afforded to us in the Sacraments of the Church but I understand and accept that you reject these. See you heaven, Lord willing.

Dear New Observer,
“Faithful’s” mighty list of killer points are all addressed correctly in the articles previously provided so it would be fruitless for me to play his/her game her. Keep in mind he/she has yet to address the central issue of proving her/his authority (other than the relentless claim to sola scriptura) to state any of these things. Yes other protestants believe them though indeed there are protestant theologians who totally disagree with the idea that Jesus had natural siblings from Mary and support their claim by appeal to Scripture. Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened to you, ask and ye shall receive. Be transformed by the renewing of your mind and God bless your journey.

Owen—Are you claiming that the immaculate conception of Mary has the same kind of biblical support as the Trinity? Hopefully that is not what you meant. They are indeed 2 different doctrines that must stand on their own. The Trinity can stand on its own with ample support from Scripture while the immaculate cannot. Its not even mentioned or allude to.

faithful - you keep pushing the same button but aren’t listening to anyone but yourself. That’s not a dialogue.

faithful:  3)  The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically.

..

Using that reasoning it would seem that those same times also were unfamiliar with and not willing to hear such words as “eat my body and drink my blood” or speaking of a bodily temple that would rise after being destroyed or One who would forgive sins even beyond raising the dead!  These contradictions of the times were also the “sufferings” of just that Woman chosen for such contradictions to bear and “keep in her heart”:  “a sword shall pierce your heart” or “did you not know that I must be in My Father’s house?”  Those mysteries to be “pondered in the heart” only, demonstrate that she was no divinity but a chosen Woman of total faith and trust in God.  That is why her complete faith in God, in giving her fiat to His will, with all of the following “complications” from the world is so humble and pure and trusting.  And of course we are speaking, not of the same old reasoning here, but of a new covenant - not putting new wine in old wineskins!  We have seen in both the OT and new that those most humiliated by the mores of their times wound up, solely through the grace of God, bearing the most unusual, blessed and central “characters” of bible history beyond the seeming possibilities of such occurrences happening through the natural abilities of humans alone!  That may have not been the status quo of the times but it seems to be somewhat in the modus operandi of God for His great tests in Faith for certain persons of His choice throughout history.

Rose- do you agree at least the it was unheard biblically that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of?
Secondly, what affect would it have had on the deity of Christ and perfect humanity if Mary did have other children after He was born?
Third, would it make any difference to nature of Mary as a human being to have had other children with her husband?
These are just some of the problems you have when you try to make Mary a perpetual virgin. Why go beyond what the Scriptures tell us about her?

Secondly, what affect would it have had on the deity of Christ and perfect humanity if Mary did have other children after He was born?

+

There is nothing in scripture itself that goes beyond the requested fiat of this chosen woman by heaven/the Father through His special messenger for just this call.  Other than that, speculative straw men have no basis.  Once that was agreed upon by her fiat her whole focus was to be that mission.  Her own choice of life prior to and continuing through that recorded event was also acknowledged by God through His messenger.  There is nothing that would suggest that this woman changed her original intention for life - even being bold enough to question about it to an angel of God - for heaven’s sake!!

+

Those who wish to go beyond that certainly can’t point to definitive scripture for their own personal desires…esp. where there is Mary alone, given to the one courageous and faithful apostle standing with her at the time of her Son’s supreme sacrifice, by the Christ, to be taken care of by this now continuing graced meaning to her new mission of “Mother” to mankind through this representative “son”.  There is no one else, for any logical continuing protection and care, that is seen to represent the Son for her future.

+

These are just some of the problems you have when you try to make Mary a perpetual virgin.

+

It certainly isn’t necessary to “try” anything of the sort.  The scriptural passage of Mary’s own questioning the messenger from God about her continuing intentions (in spite of what she was just told) and the consolation that necessarily comes from the answer is the most directive to that ongoing choice - and scripture scholars make note that her own specially graced conception in preparation for this intended event was the grace to follow such a life intended to be virginal to serve God in that special way.

+

In those times there were also individual sects that held chastity/virginal life commitment as a higher calling and a sacrificial one that demonstrated a strong belief in the afterlife as being worthy of such living in this life.  Christ Himself answered such inquiries re: the afterlife and was the perfect example of living out that expectation.  These sects saw themselves as “Israel that walks in the way of perfection”, “true Israel”, believing in the concept of “Chosen People” and excluded themselves from mainstream Jewry.  This was not something completely foreign to the times.

+

Third, would it make any difference to nature of Mary as a human being to have had other children with her husband?

+
It would make a difference to the singular mission of being called in this miraculous manner of this chosen singularly prepared woman to become the Mother of God.  For some reason you don’t appear to see this promise for which mankind had been waiting centuries for to be anything out of the normal itself.  It was certainly enough to be one completely dedicated to being of one heart to the Son and all the mysterious cooperation with Him within His own mission. It was through her own cooperation that began His ministry with His first miracle, deferring to the Mother.  You might wish to further your understanding with acquaintance with the mystical scholars.  You seem to prefer the natural above the supernatural even when the supernatural is displayed before you.

Rose writes-” Faithful asks-Third, would it make any difference to nature of Mary as a human being to have had other children with her husband?”

Rose responds-
“It would make a difference to the singular mission of being called in this miraculous manner of this chosen singularly prepared woman to become the Mother of God.  For some reason you don’t appear to see this promise for which mankind had been waiting centuries for to be anything out of the normal itself.  It was certainly enough to be one completely dedicated to being of one heart to the Son and all the mysterious cooperation with Him within His own mission. It was through her own cooperation that began His ministry with His first miracle, deferring to the Mother.  You might wish to further your understanding with acquaintance with the mystical scholars.  You seem to prefer the natural above the supernatural even when the supernatural is displayed before you.”

I still don’t understand what this has to do with Mary having other children. She certainly was the mother to other children (Matt 12:46-47) and was not at the side of Jesus during most of the time of His ministry. In fact in Matt 12:46-50 where Jesus is told His mother wants to speak to Him, He does not point the crowds to honor Mary as His mother but rather teaches the crowd to do the will of His Father. The will of His Father as Jesus taught it was never to exalt Mary the way the Catholic church has. Not even the letters in the NT make any mention of Mary (except indirectly in Gal 4:4). 
What this shows is that the Catholic church has gone far beyond what the Scriptures say about Mary and have constructed whole doctrines that the Jesus and His apostles never taught.

I asked-“These are just some of the problems you have when you try to make Mary a perpetual virgin.

+
Rose writes-
It certainly isn’t necessary to “try” anything of the sort.  The scriptural passage of Mary’s own questioning the messenger from God about her continuing intentions (in spite of what she was just told) and the consolation that necessarily comes from the answer is the most directive to that ongoing choice - and scripture scholars make note that her own specially graced conception in preparation for this intended event was the grace to follow such a life intended to be virginal to serve God in that special way.”

The problem is that the Scriptures do not present Mary as a perpetural virgin. The angel’ greeting does not even imply she must be a virgin the rest of her life nor does anything in her response say she is committed to being. The angel is telling Mary that is highly favored because Christ will come into the world through her and she will be His mother. This is why she is highly favored and it has nothing to do with being a virgin for the rest of her life.

Rose, in your response to “faithful” you state:
“... her new mission of “Mother” to mankind through this representative “son.”

Let me say that I believe it is possible for Catholics and Protestants to have civil disagreement and constructive dialog.  Indeed, for both churches are filled with members high educated and often poorly educated in the faith.  THAT is known fact.

I am currently reading the Campbell link Owen referenced yesterday and I will have further comment forthcoming.  It should be noted the Campbell article points out that both Catholics and non-Catholics alike raise valid objections to Maryology—but he says they are misplaced (in his opinion).  That said, Rose, you correctly reference Jesus on the cross saying to John:  “Woman, behold your son.”  and—“Son, behold your mother.”  Taken on face value, Jesus is requesting both John and Mary to look after and care for each other’s needs upon His death.  If one accepts this Biblical account as Jesus declares, then nothing more is “there.

As a Catholic (and one who trys to examine all aspects of church teaching),—and in fairness, is it not unfair of you to infer that “faithful” interprets Scripture on his own authority while you, Rose,—have done exactly the same by saying Mary would be the “Mother” to mankind?”  Is not your view also an interpretation of Scripture?  The legitimacy of interpretation seems a worthwhile dialog.

@New Observer, where a faithful Catholic is referencing doctrinally orthodox Church teaching, ie that which is directly from or in line with the teaching Magesterium of the Church, then no, that person, is not merely sharing their own subjective interpretation/understanding of the Scriptures as does a protestant exercising sola scriptura.
.
Rose can speak for herself :) but as I happened to be at the desk in the studio when your good question came in I decided to pop off this quick note. God bless you for making the personal investment to look into those articles. NewAvent.org will also aid. Peace.

New Observer wrote to Rose:  “... is it not unfair of you to infer that “faithful” interprets Scripture on his own authority while you, Rose,— have done exactly the same by saying Mary would be the “Mother” to mankind?”  Is not your view also an interpretation of Scripture?  The legitimacy of interpretation seems a worthwhile dialog.”

MY REPLY:  Yes!  Excellent point.  Just like the Bereans in the Bible, we ALL must search the Scriptures for revealed truth.  That’s why the Sacred Scriptures must be the Gold Standard of Measure in interpretation for everyone, Magesterium included.

While the word “Trinity” is not in Scripture, the CONCEPT most certainly is - just look at Jesus’ baptism, when He was there, and the Voice from Heaven and One having the appearance of a Dove hovered over Him.  That is the Trinity - the CONCEPT, the description, if not the word.

But no where is it even hinted at that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, after Jesus was born, or that she is Queen of Heaven, sitting at Jesus’ right Hand, which, would make her EQUAL in power to Jesus, as sitting at a rulers right hand has great significance in the Bible.

I was thinking, how come no one makes a HUGE tadoo about St. Joseph?  How come he has been almost ignored for the ENORMOUS impact he had in the role of bringing the life of Jesus to fulfillment?  After all, think about it - in those days, women did not have much say.

Mary was about 14 years old, and Joseph could have had her STONED, if he wanted to.  It would have ended HIS problem, and it would have snuffed out the life of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Mary was at Joseph’s mercy.  And Mary depended on Joseph to care for her, and the Christ Child.  Think about it.  All the Maryology folks- Magesterium included: please, give it some thought?

@Cradle Catholic

“But no where is it even hinted at that Mary remained a perpetual virgin,
after Jesus was born, or that she is Queen of Heaven, sitting at Jesus’
right Hand, which, would make her EQUAL in power to Jesus, as sitting at a
rulers right hand has great significance in the Bible.”
.
Cradle, that is your claim that the doctrine is nowhere found in the Bible but, with all due respect your authority does not trump the combination of Scared Scripture and the Magesterium you note above and the teaching of your baptism disagrees with your personal interpretation regarding the Immaculate Conception. That the, “CONCEPT” IS found in Scripture and that we understand this truth and the reasons for it (all previously presented) as it is given to us by the teaching authority of the Church has been my point all along. Again, the resources are plentiful and online for you to look into this but you have to want to do so.
.
Interestingly, the protestant Martin Luther disagreed as well and throughout his entire life said that doctrine was a required article of faith - as has been discussed (and ignored ;-)) above.
.
Regarding St. Joseph, I’m a bit surprised that as a cradle Catholic you are not more aware of the profound attention and veneration the Church pays to him as God’s chosen adopted father of the Christ Child and of the faithful, celebrate betrothed of the Virgin Mother who served well his part in protecting her and the Child. Of course, Joseph, acting independently of the Holy Spirit could have done any of those things you mention and in his natural mind and before fully responding to God’s will, as we see in Scripture, he did consider divorce.
.
As a cradle Catholic you should understand that the “GOLD STANDARD” of the Magesterium IS Sacred Scripture. May you be blessed to continue to grow in the knowledge and the faith of the Church which baptised you.

Let’s make a little “linguistic hairsplitting”, as Jimmy Akin said.
According to the Oxford Dictionary online, the first meaning of the word “America” in English is the whole continent (hemisphere). A second meaning is the United States of America:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1221367#m_en_us1221367
In the same line, the Webster Dictionary lists these two meanings for the word “American”:
1. Of or pertaining to America; as, the American continent: American Indians.
2. Of or pertaining to the United States.
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/American
The Merriam-Webster dictionary adds a third meaning for “America”, placed in first place in the list: either continent (North America or S. America) of the western hemisphere. The second meaning is the whole continent and the third one is the United States of America.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/america
In the Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia In America “America” means the continent:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in-america_en.html
Germans use both “US-Amerikaner” and just “Amerikaner” to name US Americans:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,6106444,00.html
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:US-Amerikaner
World Chess Federation (FIDE) uses in a same page “America” (in the picture) and “Americas” (in the list at right):
http://www.fide.com/component/fidedirectory/?view=federations
And in this other page uses “America” in the list at right, and “Americas” in the URL:
http://www.fide.com/component/fidedirectory/?task=continent&cont=americas
Why US Americans name “America” to the USA?  I don’t know, maybe a little bit of good old ethnocentrism. In Mexico City many people think that beyond Mexico City everything is rural Mexico. I’ve heard the same about the Parisians.
As I see it, it’s a very interesting “cultural fight” among Americans, not to be decided in a few years. US American cultural influence is very strong in all America and the rest of the world. On the other hand, America the continent will always be America, and non US American cultural influence is growing.
About the devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe and the devotion to Our Lady of America, it’s very interesting what Raymond L. Burke, Archbishop of Saint Louis wrote http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/burkeolamer.htm:
“As one deeply devoted to fostering the devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe in our nation, I have wondered about the relationship of the devotion to Our Lady of America to the devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe. Archbishop Leibold, in fact, raised the question with Sister Mary Ephrem. Sister Mary Ephrem responded that Our Lady of Guadalupe is Empress of all the Americas, whereas “Our Lady of America, The Immaculate Virgin,” is the patroness of our nation, the United States of America. The two devotions are, in fact, completely harmonious. As our late and most beloved Pope John Paul II reminded us, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mother of America and Star of the New Evangelization, draws all of the nations of America into unity in carrying out the new evangelization. Our Lady of America calls the people of our nation to the new evangelization through a renewed dedication to purity in love.”
I would like that someday US Americans name her “Our Lady of USA” or “Our Lady of US America”, but it’s just a dream.
Right now, an American dream, not a US American dream.

Owen-  Without going through the reams of documentation above that is OUTSIDE of Sacred Scripture, will you please provide for me (just from memory is fine) general verses in which the Magesterium claims the following:

1- The “vow” Mary made prior to marriage, promising God to remain a virgin
forever.
2- That Joseph agreed to marry Mary, without marital sexual priviledges.
3- That Mary was born without the stain of Original Sin.
4- That Mary was crowed Queen of Heaven & she reigns in Heaven WITH Jesus.
5-That Mary is Co-Redemptrix of humanity.
6- That Mary would continue to work, through apparitions, in perpetuity to Christians, all over the world, and give messages directly from Jesus.
7- That Mary has a role to play in the end times, at the Tribulation.

I ask this because in answer to all the above questions, I would say:

1- Mary was betrothed to Joseph PRIOR to the Angel Gabriel giving her God’s message that she was to bear the Messiah, by the Holy Spirit.  She did NOT take any vow of perpetual virginity, she was preparing to be a wife and mother by Joseph.
2- If Joseph had agreed to Mary’s perpetual virginity, Mary would have told Luke; it would have appeared in Luke’s very detailed Gospel, because Luke visited Mary, and other eye-witnesses to Jesus’ life & death.
3- The Holy Spirit, in the Bible, tells us: “There is NONE righteous, no not one.”  and “ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”  It does not say, “ALL, EXCEPT FOR MARY.”
4- Mary is NOT Queen of Heaven.  There is no queen in Heaven.  It is the Triune Godhead that reigns.  Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  That’s it.
5- Mary had a ROLE to play in salvation, and she played it admirably.  It is an insult to God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) to call Mary a Co-Redemptrix.  Mary is a created being; she IS NOT eternal, and self-existent, like God. 
6- God ALWAYS used angels to be His messengers.  If God wanted to use Mary, or anyone else, it would be possible - but as a RULE, God uses angels.  It would not be consistent for Him to be using Mary or anyone else that was human and that died, because God wants us to look to HIM and Him only - I have issues with Mary wanting churches built to HERSELF, and in HER HONOR.
7- Mary has no role in the end times.  The “WOMAN” in Revelation is Israel, from whom we have the Messiah.  Mary does not get re-pregnant with a Baby Jesus and get chased by Satan.  It is a metaphore for Israel.

I am a Cradle Catholic, with 12 years of Catholic education, I never left the Church, but I learned about my Christian faith, by reading the Bible, in context and in full, about 15 years ago.

Cradle, that’s wonderful that you applied yourself so diligently to study of the Bible for so many years. But now you want me to do the work for you instead of being just as diligent to study of the Bible in the context of your Church’s teaching? Well, I might take you up on it, honest, but not over the next couple of days because I have a final to write and it’s not officially study crunch. But you can begin by getting a Catechism and looking up your questions in the Index. That won’t be onorous at all and will give you a good start and from a source with more authority than either of us have. Not being factious, get a Catechism and the Companion to the Catechism and you will find many of your protestant notions to be effectively dealt with and, I dare say, your faith as a practicing Catholic (you never left) to become rich. God bless. See you in a few days, perhaps.

Owen states about the immaculate conception-“That the, “CONCEPT” IS found in Scripture and that we understand this truth and the reasons for it (all previously presented) as it is given to us by the teaching authority of the Church has been my point all along.”

Where is the “CONCEPT”  found in Scripture for the immaculate conception of Mary? Keep in mind the way that Jesus was concieved would not apply to Mary or anyone else since Jesus alone did not have a human father involved in His conception. All other human beings do and so inherit the sin of Adam.
It is not enough to claim the teaching authority of the church proclaims this to be true if there is no evidence for it in Scripture. We must apply what Paul wrote in I Thes 5:21-22. This applies to all believers who claim Christ as Lord and Savior.

Owen- I forgot to add the Magesterium gives the most weight to the Church Fathers, in formulating their “some new doctrines”, & Church Fathers disagreed with each other.

Origen was a credible source at one time.  Then he fell from grace.  Now Pope Benedict is giving Origen more credibility again - by quoting him.

So the whole Roman Catholic church is like it’s swinging on a rope, precariously hovering over a cliff, going with the flow of the Magesterium of the Day, blindly accepting whatever they say.

I’d have no problem with that, IF these men stuck to the Bible, and allowed the Holy Spirit to lead them, through His Word.  But they don’t.
It’s like the children’s book, “The Emperors’ New Clothes”.

Some of us need to speak up - and point out the obvious.

And as for St. Joseph getting the GREAT respect he should have: he gets very little respect, and I’d say other saints get MORE respect than he does.  That’s that in this world in which we live, with men getting so little respect, like on TV, etc. we NEED more respect for MEN.

If only our clergy would be more man-like, and worthy of being respected.
Without having a great command of sacred Scripture, it’s hard to trust them, and impossible to respect them as a group.  Catholics need to be taught TRUTH.  Not ‘my truth’ or ‘your truth’ but God’s Truth, and to prove it through the Bible, the Holy Spirit-inspired Word of God.

To An other American,

Thank you for providing that information it is quite interesting.

When it comes to the Catholic Church (Universal Church), America is one continent.  The Old Catholic Encyclopedia refers to America as “The Western Continent or the New World” 

Other documents to consider wich are found in the vatican website are:
“Sinodo dei Vescovi Per L’America, Una Nuova Evangelizzazione”
(Bishop’s Synod for America, A new Evangelization)

In it is says: “Maria, vergine di Guadalupe, Madre di tutta l’America”
        (Mary, Virgin of Guadalupe, Mother of all America)

In there the Pope is addressing one continent called “America” not Americas.

In another document:
“Omelia di Giovanni Paolo II”
Basilica di San Pietro, 12 dicembre 1981
It says:
  “...tutte le nazioni dell’America, da nord a sud…”
    (All the nations of America, from north to south)

Another document is:

“Apostolic Journey to America”
Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexico City
Saturday, 23 January 1999.

In it it says:
“Today in this Basilica of Guadalupe, the Marian heart of America, we thank God for the Special Assembly for America of the Synod of Bishops- a true upper room of ecclesial comunion and collegial affection among all the Pastors from the north, centre, and south of the continent…”

“America will be the continent with the largest number of Catholics.”

“O Lady and Mother of America!”

“Holy Virgin of Guadalupe, Queen of Peace! Save the nations and peoples of this continent.”

Another document is:

“Synodus Episcoporum Bulletin”
of the commission for information of the
Special Assembly for America
of the Synod of Bishops
16 November-12 December 1997

In it it says:
“We have concluded the works of the Synod on the day dedicated to the Virgin of Guadalupe, first witness to the presence of Christ in America. Her Shrine in the heart of the American continent is an indelible memory of the evangelization achieved in the past five centuries.”

“And today we want to entrust her with the future path of the Church in the great continent of America.”

“On that occasion I placed the evangelization of America -especially Latin America- in her hands..”

In the alleged apparition of Our Lady of America Sister Mildred was asked about the confusion regarding the name America and supposedly she wrote the following:

“I have known for many years that the United States and America are two different things, but the United States belong to America. Our Lady , it is true, asks all of America to be the first to take up the cause of renewal, but it is the United States that is to lead the world in this. So Our lady has stated and made known to me.”
www.unitypublishing

Apparently the alleged apparition told sister Mildred the following:

“Greater miracles than those granted at Lourdes and Fatima would be granted here in America, the United States in particular, if we would do do as she desires” Our Lady of America, Sept. 25, 1956

Way back then in the USA, America was known as one continent. I wonder what happened.

“Origen was a credible source at one time.  Then he fell from grace.  Now Pope Benedict is giving Origen more credibility again - by quoting him.”
.
True. The individual interpretation of any individual is always open to review
.
“So the whole Roman Catholic church is like it’s swinging on a rope, precariously hovering over a cliff, going with the flow of the Magesterium of the Day, blindly accepting whatever they say.”
.
False. The Roman Catholic Church, as the one, hold, catholic and apostolic Church, as the official entity, if you will, that Christ established has remained consistent. There is no “Magesterium of the Day” - that’s just the point.
.
“I’d have no problem with that, IF these men stuck to the Bible, and allowed the Holy Spirit to lead them, through His Word.  But they don’t.”
.
But this is you assuming you have full authority based on the protestant experiment called sola scriptura Cradle so we are back to that sticking point once again.
.
“If only our clergy would be more man-like, and worthy of being respected.
Without having a great command of sacred Scripture, it’s hard to trust them, and impossible to respect them as a group.  Catholics need to be taught TRUTH.  Not ‘my truth’ or ‘your truth’ but God’s Truth, and to prove it through the Bible, the Holy Spirit-inspired Word of God.”
.
Agreed, nearly 100%. We need more strong Catholic Bible teachers who apply themselves diligently to the Word and teach and live in line with the teaching of the Church. Because of the lack of that many Cradle Catholics have fallen away utterly from Christ - this is a scandal - or have left the Church, which is at the very least a shame or, like you (?) have remain in the Church but are deeply confused (though I respect the fact that you believe you are quite the opposite and either way I do not doubt nor wish to imply you are not a good Christian) and have absorbed (perhaps unawares) many protestant values and thinking in terms of approaching sound teaching.
.
Catholics do need to be taught the truth, yes, not my truth or your truth and that has been my point all along.

Owen- I never left the Roman Catholic church.  It is the church into which I was dedicated (baptized) as an infant, just like Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Joseph Stalin. 

I went through ALL the Sacraments, as did they: infant baptism, first confession & first Communion, and Confirmation.  Stalin was even in the seminary, studying to be a priest, but left prior to becoming ordained, and prior to his rule of terror and ultimate demise.  Somehow, I don’t think their sacraments “took”.  Mine did.  When I read the Bible, I developed a hunger for it.  The Bible is easy reading - comforting, and true.  Consistent. 

I still worship as a Roman Catholic, every Sunday, so yes, this time next year, I’ll be saying “Consubstantial with the Father…” no doubt trying to explain to an older friend what it means.

I fully expect him to ask me repeatedly, “What is connable mean?”  He also cannot say the word “Anglican”, and he constantly asks me, “How is the Anniken church coming along with us Catholics now?”

This is what I mean by Catholics follow the leader - and that most would TAKE THE KOOL-AID, as long as a member of the Magesterium gave it to them,
calling it “good”.

My senior citizen friend will happily pray nonsense words to God, words he cannot say and does not understand: like “connable” rather than to SPEAK UP AND QUESTION THE WISDOM OF IT.

As I mentioned earlier, IF our leaders were CREDIBLE, and their teaching was provable by SCRIPTURE, I’d have no problems with their decrees.  But they CANNOT prove what they claim through Scipture.

In fact, they have SO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS, it’s what causes them to do silly things, like investigate apparitions, and work their lives trying to declare more saints.

Like who ever said TWO miracles *after a person’s death* is the necessary amount for being declared a saint?  Why not three?  Why not ten?  One a day, for ten days.  NONE of that is in Scripture - in fact, it is CONTRARY to Scripture. 

I’m a little tired and hungry, thus, so many capital letters.  I’m not shouting, just for emphasis.

PLEASE ALL: Don’t drink the Kool-Aid, no matter who is pushing it!

Dear Cradle, I never said *you* did leave the Church, only that many have for the reasons stated and agree what a scandal it is.
.
It is heartening to hear when the Sacraments “take” and indeed they do, by their very divine nature create a hunger for the Word of God.
.
I fully agree we are not to “take the Kool-Aid” and I follow your allusion 100%. However, do not confuse poorly catechized priests, religious and others including ‘liberal’ Catholics and ‘cafeteria’ Catholics or even very good otherwise solid Catholics how nonetheless have some errant ideas - do not confuse any of those with the Magesterium. Not the same at all.
.
No worries, I don’t hear your CAPS as shouting. Thanks for explaining though.
.
Yes, the “two miracles” for proof of canonization of a saint is a human construct and I have read that it was once three and elsewhere (I could be wrong) only one but also as many as four. However, this is not a dogmatic article of faith and we, as the faithful, exercise reason yes, and faith, yes.
.
Apparitions and private revelations need to be investigated for the good and indeed protection of souls so, I disagree with you, that is not a silly pursuit but a necessary and worthy one. However, you and I both know that apparitions and private revelations are not required for our salvation and I for one have very little to do with them preferring worship at the Mass, study of the Bible, Adoration and attempting something of a disciplined prayer life to afford a better spiritual yield. Others, of course, become carried away with apparitions and personal revelation and become as devoted to same to the point they are willing to reject sound teaching and put the apparition experience over proven and worthy Christian practice in a manner of heart that is not really that different from those who put proving every doctrine from the Bible only (again, a Bible which we would not even have had the Church Magesterium not pronounced on what is and isn’t canon).
.
I am preparing two more notes to post because I do care about the discussion but I cannot, truly cannot, after this give any more attention here this week, my job, my family of five and my studies not to mention Adoration, Bible study (which I do daily), prayers, Mass and God willing walking the dogs claim my time.

@faithful
.
Forgive me, truly, but part of my hesitance to engage you any further is that should I provide you with the CONTEXT for the Immaculate Conception you are not going to accept it because of your issues with the teaching authority of the Church to interpret the Scriptures. That is your primary stumbling block. You have yet to prove sola scriptura from the Bible, and failed to prove why you, over any other protestant who makes the same claim yet differs significantly in doctrine, or even along with any other protestant has authority to say what Scripture properly says. You have not addressed this yet you press for proof from the Bible.
.
You have not answered, how and why you differ with Martin Luther on the veracity of the sinlessness of Mary (remembering he was the grand daddy of the protestant experiment, the brother who birthed the idea of Bible-only); the total absence of even a proof-text let alone CONTEXT for the other key protestant belief of sola-fide (faith alone) - rather James records “not by faith alone” which does matter because the answer is central to your problem of prove it to me from the Bible…
.
Does it not strike you as odd that the Bible itself provides no CONTEXT for the idea of sola scriptura? The fact that it doesn’t doesn’t aid your demand for anything to be proven from the Bible-only.
.
I read an account recently of a real conversation on the blog of a intellectually honest protestant who is in the process of realizing just how fallible the protestant claims are and it goes like this: Me: “Hey, how do you know that the Bible is inspired by God?” // Other guy: “Because 2 Tim. says that ‘All Scripture is God-breathed…’”  //  Me: “Ok, but how do you know that 2 Tim. is a legitimate book of that Scripture?”  //  Other guy: “Because it’s in the Bible.”
.
The writer goes on to say, “Do you see the circle?  The other guy presupposes the inspiration of Scripture to argue for the inspiration of Scripture.  Therefore, on this point, it seems to me that Sola Scriptura fails to offer us the very certainty requisite for adherence to its own principle.”
.
I must say that I honestly chortled out loud when I read you parroting me when you asked me if I got a certain idea on my own authority or in the Bible. That was rich. But, when I asked you why that should bother you since it is your very own method you avoided answer.
.
I’m not sure we’d get along well over coffee though we might. However, persisting in this environ has probably stopped being beneficial some time back.

Owen, I have been down this road before—and found CC doesn’t give an inch. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink—- applies to CC. Might as well give it up—many have tried but CC has developed a code of belief not to be changed by man, woman nor beast…
and sometimes I sincerely believe that we are not running a discussion with fellow Catholics but Protestants stirring things up.

@ ‘faithful’ and ‘Cradle Catholic’ both:
.
Here, I bring my contribution to a close and in it provide for the Immaculate Conception question. First though:
.
friend in-Christ, I am fully persuaded the Catholic Church is the infallible interpreter of Scripture as provided by Christ through the Holy Spirit to be our shepherd in the faith. By both faith and reason I accept all of the Scriptures as inspired and inerrant—as the Church herself teaches—but I do accept you as an authority of any kind to correctly interpret them for the essential, reasons much repeated in all of the above. If I didn’t believe that I never would have become Catholic, though I remain grateful for my protestant heritage and understand all of it as a part of God’s particular path for me to come to the truth.
...
Now, you each ask for biblical CONTEXT of the dogmatic teaching of the Church on the Immaculate Conception - which is reasonable; what is not reasonable is the penchant for returning to your own authority to determine the validity of the thing but we’ve been over this enough now and I must leave that with you to either resolve authentically…
.
And, anticipating the protest that the information provided below comes from a Catechism that was only published in 1994, I will again with patience reiterate that there is nothing new here only it is the reformulation of that which the Church (not individual members, including Fathers and Popes speaking for themselves but The Church) has always taught, again, we have been over this enough…
.
And anticipating the additional argument, “But this is the Catechism not the Bible” I say three things, 1) the Catechism *does* represent the Magesterium, the living teaching authority of the Church and as, 2) I have I am fully persuaded the Catholic Church is the infallible interpreter of Scripture (...as stated fully above) and by both faith and reason I accept, all of the Scriptures as inspired and inerrant, thus you should expect me to reference the Catechism and, 3) if you actually do read the below - and I dare you to do so with a mind open to the direction of the Holy Spirit - you *will* note the CONTEXT of the sacred Scriptures as shown both in the text of the information itself and in the rather large number of footnotes. Also, you will note, after the same fashion, the number of citations to official Church documents from Councils and elsewhere—which also form what is the Magesterium—that hold forth in further explanation of dogma and doctrine in themselves according to the CONTEXT of sacred Scripture and sacred Tradition (oh, oh, panic word for you there **wink**, and should you want, you will find each of those cited documents in full in the previously mentioned Companion to the Catechism online or in print).
.
Oh I hear you groaning but to say, ‘just put it to me briefly here in a sentence or two’ does three things, 1) absolves you of doing the due diligence your beloved Bereans did, and 2) allows for confusion from incomplete answers (which easily be intentionally or genuinely misunderstood, and 3) why not go to the source? Certainly as both of you have said, merely ‘my’ authority or ‘your’ authority is subjective and fallible and I AGREE - that’s been my challenge to you from the outset.
.
Here you are:
.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm (may also be found at) http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm
.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp (again with specific Scriptural CONTEXT
.
I encourage you to work out your salvation and “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” That’s in the Bible given to us by the Catholic Church as faithful steward by appointment of Jesus Christ and by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we may do the will of the Father.
.
On our very souls we are responsible for what we know and for what we have knowingly ignored and rejected though even then the grace and mercy of God are so great that they accompany his justice always.
.
That’s it for me. Truly, truly I say unto you, I simply have no more time to offer, have given much and am done. I will keep you in my prayers - that sounds so cheesy but I do meant that.

Oh dear, well Patt, one for the road then, a road I have been down before too and you are quite right you can lead a thirsty soul to the Church and to the Catechism but you cannot force it to drink. Thank God in heaven the CC doesn’t give an inch or we would become like everyone else, compromising on contraception, abortion, and so forth and subjecting ourselves to every wind and wave of bible-only directed doctrine. Cheers. :)

Merry Christmas Owen- and may God lead us to Heaven through His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church—the Roman Catholic Church founded by Christ, the Son of God over 2000 years ago. There is no substitute for it.
(Holidays—meaning Holy Days. Christmas—stands for Christ Mass—what a major influence Catholicism has made on the world…. and it will last until the end of time.)

Owen writes-”..Forgive me, truly, but part of my hesitance to engage you any further is that should I provide you with the CONTEXT for the Immaculate Conception you are not going to accept it because of your issues with the teaching authority of the Church to interpret the Scriptures. That is your primary stumbling block. You have yet to prove sola scriptura from the Bible, and failed to prove why you, over any other protestant who makes the same claim yet differs significantly in doctrine, or even along with any other protestant has authority to say what Scripture properly says. You have not addressed this yet you press for proof from the Bible…”

The basis for Sola Scriptura is that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant. Because of this,  they alone have ultimate authority in matters of what is binding to a Christian. If any teaching of a chuch or man cannot be grounded in the Scriptures they are not binding nor apostolic. It is by the Scriptures that we are protected from false teachings.

Now can you give me the CONTEXT for the immaculate conception from Scripture?

How do you go about testing the teachings of your church if they are true or not?

@Pilgrim
.
“The basis for Sola Scriptura is that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant.” They are inspired and inerrant, agreed but ‘alone’ - where do you get that from, from the Bible, of course as based on your authority to interpret and, there’s your circle. But I am too generous to even have looked in today against my better judgement.
.
“Now can you give me the CONTEXT for the immaculate conception from Scripture?” Done, see above. Didn’t think you looked at the links and I explained to you exactly why my answer is given through them. See same above.
.
Answer to your last question, also, explained above.
.
You perform exactly as expected - how sad, especially for you. Seeya

@Patt,
.
and a blessed remaining Advent season to you as we prepare our hearts to receive the King of kings, the only name under heaven by which we are saved. As you say, no substitutes for Jesus Christ or the Church he established once and for all time.

Owen writes-”@Pilgrim
. “The basis for Sola Scriptura is that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant.” They are inspired and inerrant, agreed but ‘alone’ - where do you get that from, from the Bible, of course as based on your authority to interpret and, there’s your circle.”
Even Catholics agree that the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant. If there something else that is inspired-inerrant what is it?
Now if there is nothing else that is inspired-inerrant then that makes the Scriptures alone inspired-inerrant.

Keep in mind also that you must interpret not only the Scripture for yourself but also church teachings. There is no way to get around interpreting. We all must do it.

It is the inspired-inerrant Scriptures that give contextual evidence for the Church’s authority to define doctrine and its apostolic authority. No doubt ‘faithful’ has been shown all this before but continues to play his/her game. None of this evidence will make any difference for ‘faithful’ but as others may be sincerely open and benefit here is that evidence based on Scripture:
.
http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp
.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
.
http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp
.
Keep in mind ‘faithful’ has no authority but his own to tell you anything but we are charged by the Church, yes, to be diligent in studying the Scriptures and to interpret and to apply to our life and to do all of the above, if you are a Catholic, in the light of the Church which is the pillar and bulwark of our faith.

Owen writes-”..It is the inspired-inerrant Scriptures that give contextual evidence for the Church’s authority to define doctrine and its apostolic authority…”
Where in Scripture is this given and 2ndly, where does the Scripture give a church to teach something that is not found in Scripture?

You also did not answer my question of another source that is also inspired-inerrant. You are avoiding the issues.

I have answered our brother in-Christ’s questions repeatedly and directly. I’ve avoided nothing.
.
Once again, see the most recent set of links which answer in detail, *with Scripture* his last question “where in Scripture.” He isn’t interested in doing the work but he’d love to bate another commenter into playing your game in the combox.
.
“and 2ndly, where does the Scripture give a church to teach something that is not found in Scripture?” Nice try. The adversary’s game, mix a fallacy with a truth to draw attention away. The answer is of course, “Nowhere” but then we’re back to his unbending bias.

Owen—I’m quite familar with the materials at Catholic Answers. I read the article on Scripture and Tradition and came across this paragraph:

“What is Tradition?

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).”

I would agree that the apostles taught orally. However, we don’t know exactly what they taught orally since we have none of these teachings in writing. The only thing we do have from them is found only in the NT.
Does the Catholic church claim to know specifically what the apostles taught orally what is not written down? Are these the “Traditions” that are not in Scripture? If so, I would like to know what specifically what they are.

faithful, I am pleased you have read the articles. Tradition “The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant” agree totally, well said. Now go back and read, or perhaps you have read but cannot accept, the articles, the Catechism, etc, on the Immaculate Conception which does not fit the categories you’ve listed but because of your bias you will not or cannot see.
.
Look, no hard feelings, but I have an exam to write later today and a huge weekend ahead. I should have kept my word and left you to it. I bid you well. Peace. Good bye.

Ownen, my comments re the aformentioned Campbell article are forthcoming later today as there are several good points concerning Kolbe’s Marian theology study.

Having just gotten back online to catch up, I want to offer this in the last many posts. —

Owen and faithful —Owen, I see where you told Cradle Catholic the Gold Standard of the Magesterium is Sacred Scripture.  As a continuing and inquiring Catholic, I often see where Catholics view the Magesterium “itself” as a standalone often independent Gold Standard of authority.  This presents confusion at times as to which exact teachings and traditions are consistent or inconsistent.  It is no wonder our Protestant believers look cautiously at some Catholic traditions such as Mary as co-redemtrix, apparitions, veneration of saints, etc.  I agree with you, Owen, that many, indeed many Catholics are poorly educated in the faith—and not often beyond receiving childhood or early teen sacraments.  Their Christian development ends right there.  Sadly, even ill-prepared clergy have not lived up to their responsibility of further growth either.  Simply because a man is seminary trained and ordained into the priesthood does not mean he will produce “fruit” of the Spirit.  It is no wonder so many people both Protestant AND Catholic are totally unable to defend “what they believe” —and more importantly “why they belive it.”  Members of both churches are ill-equipped to discuss the faith.

I wish to also say that this dialog is extremely healthy.  Nowhere else would I see the two arguments presented in classic point/counterpoint.  Certainly such discussion would never be homilized at Sunday Mass.  Thus, this is highly educational and stimulating intellectually.  I do not see “faithful” as playing games but making well-thought arguments held by most Protestants by which the Catholic Church is viewed as having added “extra Biblical” beliefs to the faith.  I also see you, Owen, defending our Catholic postion rooted in the Magesterium as the “authoritative” and apostolic interpreter of the faith.
Cradle Catholic has contributed some highly provocative questions as well I personally had not considered but certainly merit thought and discussion.  And while the two sides may never agree fully, it is hopefully possible to cede points of common bond and clarify at least some of the reasons for disagreement instead of adopting a superiority complex.

Faithful:  Am I correct that your position (the Protestant position) is that the Catholic Church is extra-Biblical in some areas of interpretation thus “outside” and beyond the parameters of Scripture?  And what is the Protestant position regarding the Catholic Magesterium as having authority to interpret?

Owen:  Do we see the Catholic position FULLY rooted in what we see as Holy Spirit-inspired—but only through the apostolic Magesterium lineage?  I had never considered this until now, however, can interpretation occur outside the Magesterium —yet inside the church and perhaps at the local level?  If that occurs, is this false and thus viewed as private or Protesant at the core?

Owen:  Thank you for your detailed response & the links.  It will take me a couple of days to read through it, especially because I’m not familiar with all the extra-Biblical information.

I found Faithful’s way of presenting a position very helpful and easy to follow.  As an example, to illustrate his points and positions, Faithful wrote about the topic of Tradition:

“..They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).”

I really appreciated 1 simple point and 1 simple verse to back it up. Most especially, I liked that the back up proof is from Scripture!

When I respond, I will attempt to format my conclusions like Faithful did, making it easy for readers.  So thank you, Owen and Faithful.

New Observer asked Owen:
“Do we see the Catholic position FULLY rooted in what we see as Holy Spirit-inspired—but only through the apostolic Magesterium lineage?  I had never considered this until now, however, can interpretation occur outside the Magesterium —yet inside the church and perhaps at the local level?  If that occurs, is this false and thus viewed as private or Protesant at the core?”

Regarding the “apostolic lineage” - that can, & has, come back to bite us.  In my area, there have been lots of articles about the (illicit) ordination of women priests.  These women are LEGALLY ordained by official bishops that are in union with Rome, but that remain incognito, in order to destroy our church by ordaining females to the priesthood, and even to make them bishops!

And about “the local level”, my own bishop allows a priest to pontificate about the acceptance of homosexual marriage in his parish and in the diocesan newspaper.  It’s nuts.  It is NOT in Scripture.

For the record, Patt is correct, in saying “CC” (not the Catholic Church, Owen, but I think me: Cradle Catholic) is entrenched in not being swayed like a reed blowing in the wind, and committed to the Truths taught in Scripture = the Gold Standard of Measure and the ONLY means about which a Christian (Catholic, non-Catholic) can rely as 100%  God’s Word.  All things will pass away, but HIS Word will never pass away.

The Bereans rock - and so do the sincerely searching and learning readers of this blog.  Thank you to the Register for providing this forum, for us all to learn and to communicate with each other.

Owen - thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us, in view of the responsibilites you have with family, school and your dogs!  Merry, Happy and Blessed Advent and Christmas!

Medjugorje and the song of its sirens

What has been written and how it has been expressed in the present thread and in a first one [http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pope-benedict-on-mystical-experiences] is so illustrative of the Medjugorje controversy that it inspires me to write a post in the near future on my own blog [http://en.louisbelanger.com/2010/10/20/medjugorje-the-grand-concealment-2-three-more-days-duplicity-rene-laurentin/] on that “projective exemplar”.

Thanks to Jimmy Akin who, with his “What do you think?” about Benedict XVI’s evaluation of mystical phenomena and its implication for the Medjugorje case, has stirred up a range of interesting reactions, some questions arose in my mind that I would like to
submit here and on the other thread [http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pope-benedict-on-mystical-experiences].

The first question has to do with the credibility of anonymous commentators. As an “old-fashioned” researcher, it has never crossed my mind to sign my writings with a fictitious name: they would have never been published! The ethics of identification is still respected in the scientific community. It does not seem to be the case with the current electronic commenting in the blogs. I deplore that lack of transparency. How can you trust someone who hides behind a mask? Particularly Medjugorje is all about trust: trust in the “Lady of Medjugorje”, trust in the pastoral personnel, trust in the “seers”, in short, trust in the “messengers” of all sorts pretending to have direct contact with the Virgin Mary who is the origin of a mystical experience.
A practical example? “Pilgrim” who writes: “I choose the name “pilgrim” because I recognise myself as a “pilgrim” in this life… It is not sinful to do this, just a recognition of my status in life and proclaiming it rather than proclaiming my own name.” That is his justification to Patrick Coffin. [http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pope-benedict-on-mystical-experiences]
Fortunately for those who cherish transparency, “pilgrim” has “betrayed” himself in the letter he quotes here from Father Brendan O’Malley not addressed to “Dear Pilgrim” but in fact to “Dear Bernard” (Gallagher) [http://medjugorjewitness.blogspot.com/2005/12/priests-first-visit.html]. In his complete profile, Bernard Gallagher mentions seven (7) of his own blogs [http://www.blogger.com/profile/02290153489120543035] and his email address by name.
Mr. Gallagher seems to be well informed on the case of Medjugorje—- unfortunately he keeps most of his “documented” references for himself—- and has a high opinion of himself: “You are free to have a personal opinion as is the Mostar bishop – just as I am.” [http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pope-benedict-on-mystical-experiences] Can one compare an undocumented personal opinion of an anonymous pilgrim with the documented judgement of a competent legitimate authority on the subject?
Mr. Gallagher’s insinuations are usually not documented or referenced: “Perhaps the bishop’s public rant against cardinal Schonborn last Christmas may have had something to do with it? Perhaps Benedict knows a little more about the bishop’s behaviour than Diane does? The bishop is not always forthcoming with the full story, demonstrated by the way he only published part of the letter on his website sent to him by cardinal Schonborn; and he never came clean to the full facts as to why after many years he stopped the seer Mirjana receiving her apparitions at the Cenacolo Community in Medjugorje.”
[to be continued]

Medjugorje and the song of its sirens
After more than eight thousand words on the first thread, [http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pope-benedict-on-mystical-experiences] “Pilgrim” who is not “forthcoming with the full story” of his real name has resorted to a confession on the present thread: “Bonnie, Dianne (sic) and everyone else that has contributed to this topic, I want to take this opportunity to offer my sincere apologies for anything that I have said that may have offended or hurt anyone that has posted to this discussion. In my weakness I allowed myself to speak unjustly against others, brothers and sisters in Christ. It was nobody’s fault but my own, and for this I am truly sorry. In the words of St James, “Who am I to give a verdict on my neighbour?” I have done this and now wait for the Lord to lift me up again. Pray for me. Peace.”
I wonder if Mgr Pavao Zanic and Mgr Ratko Peric who have “heavily contributed to the topic” of Medjugorje are also addressees of those “sincere apologies”. Let us give Mr. Gallagher the benefit of the doubt. What weight then will have those sincere apologies coming from an anonymous pilgrim, especially if they are not reproduced on his seven blogs? Offences and unjust judgements will remain in the blogosphere, attributed to a masked “sinner”, and they will pursue their harmful influence on ill-informed readers. So far for the ethics of anonymous identification and its consequences.
My second question has to do with the “song of the sirens”: the so-called good fruits.

I have tried and am still trying to document that the edifice of the “Lady of Medjugorje” has been built on the quicksand of lies, artifices and falsifications produced by the main protagonists of Medjugorje. I invite the readers to look at the demonstration that the end of the “apparitions” announced by the “Lady of Medjugorje” [http://en.louisbelanger.com/2010/09/30/medjupedia-a-pause-?-the-construction-of-the-“lady-of-medjugorje”/#Lady of Medjugorje] has raised one of the most, if not the most important objection that has hindered the recognition of their supernatural character by the first three Commissions. [http://en.louisbelanger.com/2010/10/20/medjugorje-the-grand-concealment-2-three-more-days-duplicity-rene-laurentin/] I understand that it is not easy to acknowledge that priests and faithful indulge in such manoeuvres against the truth. Nevertheless it is the unfortunate reality. If Medjugorje protagonists are not truthful, and if you have documented proof of the construction of the Lady of Medjugorje, how can you still trust them and say that the Virgin Mary or Her Son is party to the artifice?
What place do well documented facts take in the process specified by the 1978 Norms? [http://d-rium.blogspot.com/p/normae-s-congregationis.html] The “facts” belong to the first place: moral certitude or at least great probability of the existence of the occurrence, acquired through serious investigation. Then personal qualities of the subject or subjects, especially psychological balance, uprightness and moral rectitude, sincerity and habitual docility toward ecclesiastical authority, followed by spiritual veracity, freedom from all error and conformity of revelations with theological doctrines. And, as a last resort, the question of spiritual fruits.
Some of the promoters close their eyes to the facts that are already accessible to every person of good faith—- not only to the members of the four Commissions. In a kind of wilful blindness, they lead their followers to an eventual collapse of trust. Read the following bragging by Stephen K. Ryan (ministryvalues.com) on Patrick Madrid’s blog: “If Medjugorje is proved false I want to meet the inventors and give them a hug.” [http://patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/2010/10/memo-to-certain-medjugorje-adherent-who.html] The problem with embracing fraud, deception and lying—- the end (the fruits) justifying the means—- is that it destroys the trust that one could have in the embracer. The whole matter is about trust and truthfulness.

Inspired by St. Augustin from his De Mendacio, the Cathechism [http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm#III] is very explicit on offenses about truth: (nr. 2486) “Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.”

I cannot imagine that the members of the Ruini Commission and Benedict XVI himself are not ready to “embrace” those careful thoughts.

Louis Bélanger

There is faith, hope and a depth of Love in America which this now (humbled servant)would not have known if America herself had not been so very humbled. We need, as the whole world needs, The Truth. We need Him Who Is The Truth. Our Lady of Good Hope is not a bad thing, nor is Our Lady of Guadalupe a bad thing as our Lady always points to Jesus Her Son, who Is The Truth. Our Lady of America is a message not condemned and worthy of a look to combat a major eternal life or death and eternal damnation issue of the day. Please take a look and pray, “Our Lady of America, pray for us.” (devotion not discouraged).

New Observer: you make some excellent points on your last post. I also think its good to have some good dialogue amongst ourselves as you and Cradle Catholic point out. It certainly has helped me to understand what I believe and why. Being challenged certainly helps to refine one’ beliefs. In regards to this question you asked:
“Faithful:  Am I correct that your position (the Protestant position) is that the Catholic Church is extra-Biblical in some areas of interpretation thus “outside” and beyond the parameters of Scripture?  And what is the Protestant position regarding the Catholic Magesterium as having authority to interpret?”

I think you put this well. I don’t think the Catholic church has the Scripture in its “proper place” as thee guide for its doctrines and practices for the most part. It acknowledges the Scriptures as inspired-inerrant but does not allow the Scripture to form its doctrines and practices rather it uses the Scripture to support its doctrines even if it has to take things out of context. The Marian doctrines are an example of this.
The Catholic Magesterium does have authority to interpret. The question is what they interpret, true? How does a catholic know? The only way I know of is to compare what they teach with Scripture. If it does not line up with Scripture then it’s the teachings of men and not God.
The typical catholic response is to say-“by what authority” do have to interpret Scripture? By using this tactic, those who use this line of reasoning actually undermine what Scripture commands us to do in I Thessalonians 5:21 and various other places in Scripture.
What do you think? If you are considering joining the Catholic church, have you looked at its doctrines and practices at depth?

Cradle Catholic—I thought you made some excellent points above on Mary. Have you talked with your fellow catholics about these things and what has been their response?

Let us all take a deep breath, sit back and let the proper authorities make the decision. Nothing here
has changed anyone but only made them dig in deeper—as either for it or against it. It doesn’t make a whit of difference for us to keep this argument going—it is wasted time that could be better spent in prayer or spiritual (or corporal) works of mercy. Let us prepare for the coming of Christ.

Patt - It’s appropriate you ended your post with, “Let us prepare for the coming of Christ.”  You might have meant it as a reference to Christmas.  But I read it as when Christ comes again!

It reminded me particularly of an experience I had last Sunday after Mass
when I saw a young seminarian - around 23 years old- that I first met over the Summer.  I asked what he was studying.  He said “Epistomology” - the spelling may be wrong; he said it was the “study of knowledge”.

I asked him when he would be studying Scripture, in detail.  He said not for a long time & he was only a new student.  I reminded him when St. Paul (Saul, at the time) was confronted by Jesus, and converted, the Holy Spirit led Paul into the desert to teach him all aspects of the faith, enough where it was from Paul that we enjoy SO much of the New Testament, and its teachings!

Since our culture so badly needs to hear the Gospel, I asked him, “What if this was a war zone, and there was a soldier in the trenches, that you knew did not know Jesus, and he was going to die within minutes.  What would you say to introduce Jesus to him?”

He responded by saying, “That’s a good question.  I don’t know.”  I told him the Holy Spirit did not spend the first-fruits of His time teaching Paul epistomology!  If he did, Paul would have written about it.

It is SO important for ALL of us to read Scripture and to COMMUNICATE with each other.  I’m grateful for this blog.  “Seek first to understand” = and the way to understand is to communicate.

Faithful - I’m giving your question to me thought.  Yes, I have spoken with my fellow cradle Catholics about Mary.  The responses are similar to what MY response was, when I first read Scripture & understood it in context.  I walked in their shoes.  I know how it feels.  I remember.

For the record: I love the Catholic liturgy form of worship, & I understand it.  I was born into a Catholic family.  I intend to remain Roman Catholic, for as long as I live.

Pat- writes-“Let us all take a deep breath, sit back and let the proper authorities make the decision. Nothing here
has changed anyone but only made them dig in deeper—as either for it or against it. It doesn’t make a whit of difference for us to keep this argument going—it is wasted time that could be better spent in prayer or spiritual (or corporal) works of mercy.”

These dicussions are not a waste of time and we should never allow the “proper authorities” to make decision without holding them to the truth. This is how cults work.

“If Mary no longer finds a place in many theologies and ecclesiologies, the reason is obvious: they have reduced faith to an abstraction. And an abstraction does not need a Mother.”
Joseph cardinal Ratzinger (The Ratzinger Report)

Owen, —thanks for the Campbell reference concerning Kolbe’s Marian theology.  I am unsure if Kolbe’s theological discourse is Vatican endorsed and approved or not?  In some respects, Kolbe appears to have taken license. I understand faith,—and that man is led by the Holy Spirit in that faith.  It appears that Kolbe uses his conjecture at times to develop what he believes is true.  For example, Kolbe states “the Holy Spirit distributes all graces and works “in and through” Mary.  He uses Mary as the conduit (if you will) for all grace.  I do not think the church teaches grace we receive from the sacraments are dispensed from Mary.  Grace was also poured out upon the Patriarchs, Moses, David and the Prophets as well as all OT saints.  Thus, the Marian theology appears to be something applied only—and now—for NT believers.  Jesus told His Apostles, “I will put my Spirit in you”  but He did not say it would come through His mother.  Kolbe further states ” ...it is true to say all graces merited by Christ come to us through Mary; through her motherly help and prayerful intercession.”  The question becomes must a Catholic do this —and only through Mary—or may we go directly to Jesus? He is staunch in his position that the Holy Spirit (Kolbe’s words) “works only in and through Mary,—His beloved spouse.”  This, for myself, places Christ at a distance and less personal due to the Marian Mediatrix.  He further uses a refrain exclusively found in Paul’s letters:  “In Christ, through Christ, with Christ.”  Koble similarly applies the same refrain in contextual use concerning Mary.  Does this now usurp Paul’s writings—or do we view them as an extension of Paul?  This is an interesting theology.  Local parish priests (at least in memory) have not mentioned Marian theology so this is new in my experience.  Again, I am unsure whether some or all of Kolbe’s writings are Vatican endorsed.  Campbell comments that in Paul VI’s 1974 Marialis Cultus, he says Pope Paul VI may or may not have even known about Kolbe’s writings.  I will continue to ponder the article, however, your take will be appreciated.  Thanks, Owen.

Pilgrim writes-”“If Mary no longer finds a place in many theologies and ecclesiologies, the reason is obvious: they have reduced faith to an abstraction. And an abstraction does not need a Mother.”
Joseph cardinal Ratzinger (The Ratzinger Report)”

If you study the NT you will not find her either in their theology either.

Patt, I respectfully disagree.  This is not a “waste of time”—as you say.  Christian unity —even Catholic unity is often in discord because we do not know what is behind the faith and the reasoning to support what we say we believe.  This is quite informative, stimulating and educational.

“In her very person as a Jewish girl becomes the mother of the Messiah, Mary binds together, in a living and indissoluble way, the old and the new people of God, Israel and Christianity. She is, as it were, the connecting link, without which the Faith (as it is happening today) runs the risk of losing its balance by either forsaking the New Testament for the Old or dispensing with the Old. In her, instead, we can live the unity of Sacred Scripture in its entirety.”
Joseph cardinal Ratzinger (The Razinger Report)

Oh boy, pilgrim & faithful, two of the same kind - this should be fun to watch. (word verification ironically is attack84 - hilarious)

Pilgrim writes-”“In her very person as a Jewish girl becomes the mother of the Messiah, Mary binds together, in a living and indissoluble way, the old and the new people of God, Israel and Christianity. She is, as it were, the connecting link, without which the Faith…”

Actually John the Baptist is the one who is the linchpin between the OT and NT. He was afterall the last prophet of the OT and the forerunner of Christ. Note what Jesus says about him:  “I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
Luke 7:28
He is actually given greater honor than Mary.

Qualified by: “...yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”

Appropriately, every one of us should feel individually that we are “least” in the kingdom.”

New Observer- Have you read the Glories of Mary by Saint Alfonso Ligori?
In it you will find some idea how the church looks at Mary and her place in it. Its quite shocking.

Faithful-  I can’t imagine anyone on this blog disagreeing with me, if I point out the average Catholic is unaccustomed to using the skill of “Critical Thinking” regarding their faith.  That is not meant to be an insult to anyone or any group - it is merely FACT.

While Catholics use critical thinking with everything else in life: raising children, at work, health & home plans, we are neither taught the skill nor the habit of using critical thinking in the formation of our Christian beliefs.

As a result, Catholics haven’t the ability to discern deep Scripture truths, or think about even simple Bible revelations for ourselves.  We are merely required to place ourselves into a second-grade mindset, becoming much like sponges for the Magesterium.  In fact, even apologists from Catholic Answers have said, on the air, they aren’t into “Administration” but rather, they are only in “Sales” regarding the faith.  No real thinking is required of any Catholic, unless it’s to search Scripture for obscure verses to back up a predetermined extra-biblical point or doctrine, mostly those about Mary.

You suggested 1 Thessalonians 5:21, in your post, “Test everything that is said.  Hold fast to what is good.” Paul’s advice is spot on! After having read the Bible myself, in context & in full, I do that all the time.

Laziness initially stopped me from reading the Bible.  But in my defense, I also felt ill-equipped to understand the Bible.  It takes time & work.  It also takes CRITICAL THINKING & discernment.  But the beauty of having taken Paul’s 1 Thess. 5:21 to heart is since I familiarized myself with His Word, I have a peace, a joy, a SECURITY, & a knowledge of God, His character and His nature, that I never had before, when I was stuck in that second grade mentality.  Catholics, as a rule, have NO security in eternal life.  Thus as a rule, Catholics really have NO “Good News”.  We have potential good news.  But it can be lost tomorrow, if we aren’t “good.”

You asked me what reaction I got from fellow Catholics, when I share my views about Mary with them.  First, you need to know there are MANY more Catholics like me, having been drawn to Scripture, understanding it in full & in context.  In fact, one of them encouraged me to read the Bible for myself many years ago.

But Scripturally and doctrinally malnourished Catholics react as I first did, when I heard something that differed from my second grade teachings about Mary.  Basically, I get a look: like what I’m saying doesn’t compute.  Most never thought of questioning anything we were taught back then, so other dimensions to some doctrines have just never been posed to them before.  They trusted they were being taught God’s Truth.  So when I merely point out what’s in Scripture ... EVEN WHEN I READ IT VERBATIM, some will respond with, “Well, that’s your opinion.”

Because I know exactly how they feel, I remain compassionate and composed.  15+ years ago, my faith was completely external.  I went to church.  I tried to be good.  I did acts of charity.  I felt secure my place in Purgatory was prearranged for me, because after all, how many people are bad enough for Hell?  I knew for sure I wasn’t good enough for Heaven.  I figured God would grade on the curve.  I tried to stay under His radar.  I never read the Bible - I got enough verses at Mass.  And I was in the “one true Church” started by St. Peter, as a good fortune from birth, so I had the ideal head start.

It was after I had an injury and was brought to my knees that a Bible-literate Catholic friend suggested Psalms for me to read.  I used to think the Bible was ancient history, not applicable to my life except for the necessity for everyone to obey the 10 Commandments.  But when I looked up those Psalms, it gave me such comfort!  And the wisdom was totally applicable for my OWN life!  It was as if those verses were written TO me & FOR me & for THAT DAY!  Soon, I was hooked on reading Scripture!  I read the Bible, from cover to cover, in about four months, thinking, “Why didn’t anyone ever teach me this?”  I loved what I was reading!  I was learning so much!  Reading the Bible filled in the blanks, to the little I really knew.  I had 12 years Catholic schooling.

Even Catholics advanced in education to a PhD level may NOT be learning much of the Bible.  Most are taught extra-biblical curriculum, like in philosophy and writings of the Church Fathers.  Much of it has no eternal value, it’s just knowledge.  The Greeks would be proud.  But St. Paul would agonize over it - as he did in his letters about the intelligentsia of his day that chose rabbit trails.  They have religion.  They do not have a relationship.  God has to be a Person for us to know, in order to have a relationship with Him.

Catholics trust their clergy are well educated and formed in order to teach.  But I once asked a priest, “What does it mean to be born again?”  He hesitated and then said, “It’s part of the Charismatic movement.”  I asked a priest that does exorcism, “How do you use Ephesians Chapter 6, the Armor of the Holy Spirit, in your work?”  He never answered it specifically.  But he said he “goes to the Sacraments more” and encourages those that see him for help, to do that too.  It left me thinking he didn’t know what the Armor was!

It seems as if the last thing Catholics, from the Magesterium on down, do is to just read WHAT Scripture is saying, and take it at face value, as a first manner of interpretation.  “WHAT DOES IT SAY?”  That should be the first interpretation.  But instead, most Catholics, Magesterium included, put equal value to anything and everything some “holy” looking “saint” from the past said.  If it sounds good, they teach THAT to everyone.  It’s where I got my second grade mentality about my faith.  It is this that causes that “deer caught in headlights” look I get from fellow Catholics, when I share my views.  It’s obvious they’re having flashbacks to what “Sr. This or That” instructed them, way back when, in childhood.  Sponges.  Not thinkers.

My mother read the Bible often when I was a child.  My father died a couple months before I was born; my mother was pregnant for me, and in shock.  The Catholic church (priests, nuns & fellow Catholics) were there for her, pointing her to Scripture for comfort.  So Mom quoted Scripture constantly, when I was growing up.  While her Bible was always right there, on a coffee table to read, she never pushed it on me.

One day, when I was a teenager, she said something really profound.  When I told her she was smart, she said, “God said that.  It’s in the Bible.”  I remember this, like it was yesterday!  I went straight to her Bible, interested in what God had to say.  I flipped the pages.  But I was discouraged - it looked like a daunting effort.  I had no idea where to begin.  Even after I grew up, I’d sometimes flip the pages, and put the Bible back down.

I’m so grateful my Catholic friend encouraged me to read the Bible.  She loaned me her easy to read version.  I took the Jeff Cavin’s Journey Through the Bible and his Acts of the Apostles series at a local parish a few years ago.  It was wonderful.  For the past 10 years, I’ve attended a weekly Bible study at my Catholic Church.  Several cradle Catholics (at the same level as I) meet with others, that have less experience.  Some have 20-30 years of studying Scripture under their belts!  I love the fellowship & the learning - we can edify each other, for His glory.

How else can we share our faith?  With New Age thinking, same-sex issues on the table, with abortion, euthanasia, etc.  Catholics MUST BE EQUIPPED to share our Christian faith, & TAUGHT Bible truths that have ETERNAL VALUE.  Most bishops are making themselves to be irrelevant to the general population, and even to most Catholics.  It’s sad.  But it is, what it is.

The layman that leads our Bible study has been in the Word for about 10 years.  He has grown SO much during the past 5 years.  I think of him not only as our “pastor” but as our BISHOP too.  This godly man teaches God’s truths, so faithfully, so diligently, STRAIGHT FROM THE BIBLE. Paul would be proud of him!  Our ordained pastor is more of a fundraiser, an elbow-rubber to the wealthy.  Our bishop does not care if unsound doctrine is preached, even by priests in our diocese—even by activists for same-sex marriage!!!

Since my eyes were opened to the GIFT that is Scripture, I lean into God, drawing near to Him.  He is faithful & trustworthy & the same yesterday, today and forever.  I have access–Jesus as my Advocate.  God is not down on me.  He is always there & merciful.  I now know the Good News.

My “good works” are needed, and to show that I love Jesus.  It’s said that we can give to someone without loving them.  But we cannot love someone without giving to them.  I WANT to do good - so as to not grieve my Father.  My view of what God is like is different from that second grade mentality.  I can’t put Him in a box.  But I believe in Him by how He reveals Himself to us - He does that in Scripture.  That is why Scripture is “The Gold Standard of Measure” in the Christian faith.

While the Magesterium gets 5 stars from me, for remaining true to the morals set out in the Bible, they get failing grades in being credible witnesses in real life.  They get failing grades for making the Roman Catholic-Christian faith irrelevant in the world.  They get failing grades for not teaching Catholics how to discern & use Critical Thinking skills to understand the Christian faith.

We need to look no farther than all those Catholics that discerned their way into the support of abortion & same-sex marriage, both: an AFFRONT to God, per the Bible.  It’s crystal clear.  Anyone that KNOWS God & LOVES Him & wants to PLEASE HIM, sees that.

Un-churched Catholics are responsible for much damage in our country.  The Magesterium is responsible, for taking their eyes off eternal matters, placing them on these hard-to-prove, extra-biblical, divisive subjects, like apparitions.  How I wish these men would get in the trenches, as did St. Paul & “their leader”, St. Peter, the fisherman.

In the case of Our Lady of America…how can a devotion to an “unapproved” apparition be “approved”? It’s like the CDF is saying “even if this apparition is false, it’s ok to revere it”. If it is false, how is it ok to be devoted to something that doesn’t exist?  Sounds as if this is bordering on idolatry.

Ron - Your post is spot on.  This is yet another example of how most Catholics just leave their brain at the church door.

Thanks for proving it Cradle Catholic (the part about leaving your brain at the church door).

Re all this importance over where and to whom this —or any apparition takes place is misguided.  Why all the fuss about geography?  Of what eternal importance is the geographic location?  The Bible says God “is not a respecter of persons”  (or nations for that matte—except for Israel).  Scripture says Israel is the only nation “sacred unto my self.”

The few apparitions of Our Lady in what is now Champion, Wisconsin, occurred in 1859. In 2010, they were approved by Bishop Ricken in a formal decree in which he approved the apparitions and locutions. This was the first formal approval of apparitions in the United States.
  Our apostolate promotes devotion to Our Lady of America. This is the only canonically approved devotion in the United States. The devotion consists of prayers, prophecies and promises, the study and practice of the divine indwelling the wearing of her medal, following her requests and devotion to St. Joseph.
  The devotion is based upon apparitions and locutions of Our Lady of America to Sister Mary Neuzil from 1956 to 2000. The earlier apparitions and locutions were described in a diary which received an Imprimatur from Archbishop Leibold on January 25, 1963,  as did a medal that Our Lady requested. There was no formal decree, as in Champion, and the apparitions were not explicitly approved, although they were implicitly approved because of the Imprimatur for the diary based upon them.
  In a letter dated May 31,  2007, Archbishop (now Cardinal),  Raymond L Burke reviewed the prior history and then state of the devotion, as well as the earlier actions of Archbishop Leibold approving the devotion.
  Archbishop Burke wrote, “What can be concluded canonically is that the devotion was both approved by Archbishop Leibold and, what is more, was actively promoted by him. In addition, over the years, other bishops have approved the devotion and have participated in public devotion to the Mother of God, under the title of Our Lady of America.”
Dan Lynch
The Apostolates of The Missionary Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe and Jesus King of All Nations
144 Sheldon Road, St. Albans, VT 05478
Phone: 802-524-5350 - Fax: 802-524-5673
Visit our website at www.JKMI.com
E-Mail Us at JKMI@JKMI.com
May Our Lady of Guadalupe keep you under the mantle of her protection and
may the Reign of Jesus King of All Nations be recognized in your heart!

Wow, I can’t believe some of the bickering going on here! For those of you who question the Catholic Faith and teachings there are several wonderful books written by Dr. Scott Hahn. He is a convert to Catholicism and he is very knowlegable on this subject.  I think maybe some of you should spend more time praying and trying to become informed rather than bickering.  Personally to me, Mary has and always will play an important role in my life as the Mother of Jesus who leads me to and brings me closer to her son. When I pray the rosary I am asking her to pray for me, to intercede on my behalf. If I can’t ask the mother of Jesus to pray for me, then who can I ask? Jesus loves his mother and he listens to her.
SHE brings me closer to Jesus. I live very close to the shrine in Champion ( and I am hoping and praying as are all the people who live around here that the area does not become a “media circus” and that visitors to the shrine are respectful of the shrine and the people who live around it),and I have been going there for many, many years. It is a very peaceful, prayerful place that brings people closer to Jesus through Mary his mother. I have had many prayers answered by asking the Mother of Jesus to pray for me. If anyone can make a good case for me and my intentions, She can. Of course I pray to Jesus as well. I find it very sad that there are people who do not feel that Mary is not important. I think the fact that we have so many beautiful prayers dedicated to Her ( again asking Her to pray for us) is proof that she IS important to the Catholic church and it’s teachings. Her apparitions are so that She can (again) bring people to her son. When so many non believers or apathetic people are brought to Jesus through Mary, how can anyone think that is a bad thing? She is doing what her son wants! She is bringing our attention to JESUS. This is my own personal belief, this is how I feel , and this is how all of my Catholic friends feel about this subject. There are things that happen that are beyond our understanding, but we choose to believe based on our faith and Catholic teachings that miracles happen, that God can (and does) make ANYTHING happen (apparitions) to bring people closer to his son. I believe that apparitions are God’s way of trying to save mankind, of giving us a chance to repent and to become faithful believers..it is a great grace that He uses Mary as his vessel to do this.
I pray for all of you out there that do not believe, ( for your conversions) who question your faith/the teachings of the church (that you find the answers you should be praying for), and for those of you who pick and choose what you want to believe and not what the church teaches.  I am not a scholar of the church ( thus the books by Dr. Hahn), and I don’t know the Bible as well as I should, but I do know that I have very deep faith in Jesus; I have faith that when I ask Mary to pray for me She does,  I have faith that when I ask the Saints in Heaven and all of my loved ones who have left this world to pray for me that they do, and that when I pray to Jesus,  He hears me. I have lost several family members in the last 3 years ( my son, my mother, a sister, an aunt and an uncle), and I KNOW that the prayers of Mary are what helped keep me sane after my son died, as well as my deep faith in Jesus. I almost lost another sister at the beginning of this year, and I KNOW it is the prayers of Mary on my sister’s behalf as well as our prayers to Jesus that saved her. I have yet another sister who has been battling cancer is with us because of Mary ‘s prayers on her behalf as well as our prayers to Jesus. Mary enhances our prayers and our lives. She is a role model that I look up to and love as my own mother. I do not worship her as I worship Jesus, but I do love her because she loves, cares and prays for me. It is as simple as that.
For me anyway.  I pray that the rest of you find peace and the answers to your prayers…and that those of you who continue to bicker figure out that this is an opportunity for you to pray and learn. I will be learning about Catholic teachings for the rest of my life :) God Bless +

Please excuse any and all typos in the above!

In 1999, Pope John Paul II issued an Apostolic Exhortation: POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION called “ECCLESIA IN AMERICA”, given at Mexico City. JP II simply refers to both North and South America as “America” - somewhat confusing for those of us who are used to referring to citizens of the USA as Americans, when in fact, we are all Americans, according to the Pope.

ECCLESIA IN AMERICA
OF THE HOLY FATHER
JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS,
PRIESTS AND DEACONS,
MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS,
AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL
ON THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE LIVING JESUS CHRIST:
THE WAY TO CONVERSION,
COMMUNION AND SOLIDARITY
IN AMERICA

I never knew about Our Lady of America until recently. Apparently, in 2007 then-Archbishop Burke wrote how the apparition is approved. It occurred to Sr. Mary Ephrem (Mildred Neuzil) of Ohio on September 25, 1956, and continued for many years thereafter. There’s even an approved prayer for Our Lady of America.

My question is: Has Our Lady’s request in Sr. Mildred’s apparitions that a statue of Our Lady of America be enthroned in the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., been heeded? According to the basilica’s website, there isn’t a statue of Our Lady of America in the National Shrine. :(

Considering Our Lady of Guadalupe saved Mexico from its culture of death (cf. Warren Carroll’s Our Lady of Guadalupe and the conquest of darkness), Our Lady of America needs more devotion!

It may need which is not your money and time if you attempt out every last solution up until you choose one that operates. A competent option for you is always to went through a variety of reviews on vitamin supplements online to learn about the ordeals of individuals that have attempted them out. The evaluations should be able to give you an idea of typically the most popular weight loss supplements, which you can choose from to implement. Really it is important to learned about the alternative people are saying about each individual merchandise that can assist you make your decision.  http://capsiplexguide.blinkweb.com/  These exercises will expect you to extra several hours while working out, a short while for the exercise machine both at home and following a diet plan religiously, nonetheless, you can find those who a bigger factor circumstances to use their here we are at other than exercising. Other folks price time a whole lot that in some cases they expect good produces a brief period. That consequence could possibly be obtained by employing weight loss supplements that exist in a great deal in the marketplace. It could be boring shopping for the best product that you will find successful in your case. These weight loss supplements are split into 2 types good way they operate, you are sport nutrition to master your desire for food as well as the other is designed for getting rid of fats.

80% off Womens Fashion SALE!!! http://www.fashionand.co.uk the latest shoes, dresses, lingerie and swimwear

Our lady of America is a true devotion to Our Lady, The Mother of God. It can be correctly referenced to the proper Web Site at OurLadyofAmerica.com - operated by the only official and recognized Our Lady of America Center located at 700 N. Susan Drive – P.O. Box 445 Fostoria, Ohio. 

All others are impostors and are false representatives of Our Lady of America.  Web Sites such as:

http://ourladyofamerica.org/

and

http://www.oltiv.org/

It must also be noted that the statue shown here on these false Web Site is false and satanic.

The True image of Our Lady of America can be seen at: 

    http://ourladyofamerica.com/

Tragically, the devotion has been hijacked and corrupted by a motley crew of cutthroat gangsters who have stolen not only the true statue of Our Lady of America from Sister Joseph Therese CIT, a professed religious, but her good reputation as well, using her own image against her on their evil web sites as only satan would, and then trying to pawn off their false miracles as some kind of evidence of the authenticity of their false apostolates; nothing more than wicked designs against Sister Joseph Therese and the True Devotion to Our Lady of America.

Because of all of this, and the devilish events that were transpiring shortly before these posts were made on this blog, it became necessary in order for Sister Therese to protect the integrity of the messages and the True Devotion to Our Lady of America to issue to following letter in March of 2009:

http://ourladyofamerica.com/form/sister_letter.pdf

… which can be found on the true Our Lady of America Web Site under the” About Us” Tab and then clicking on “protecting the message” and scrolling down to the bottom of the page.

The Last Will and Testament of Sister Mildred Mary Neuzil, the visionary of Our Lady of America and professed religious of Sister with Sister Joseph Therese – and close friend of course can be seen at:

http://ourladyofamerica.com/willandtestament.php

… which can be found on the true Our Lady of America Web Site under the” About Us” Tab and then clicking on “Last Will and Testament”

Finally, anyone who wishes to read all of the intricate details of what has transpired over the last several years against the True Devotion to Our Lady of America and the trials and hardships and lawsuits brought against Sister Joseph Therese and the Our Lady of America Center can go to:

http://ourladyofamerica.blogspot.com/
http://ourladyofamerica.blogspot.com/

This January 14, 2013 will be a big day for Our Lady of America !!!

The DELIBERATE PERJURY of those who have attacked Sister Therese, which the before mentioned blogger is prepared to PROVE TO A FEDERAL JURY AT TRIAL, PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 14, 2013 AT THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE IN INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA can be read in detail on his blog as well as everything that had happened in subsequent blog posts dating back to 11/14/2008.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to set the record straight and to Defend the True Mary and our precious Sister Therese who has suffered so much at the hands of unjust men for Our Lady and Our Lord Jesus Christ.

RbM

RbM:  Thank you for your post which is the Truth and has summed up the current situation with the real facts.  Please remember that these charlatans who have hijacked the devotion did so for their own gain, accusing Sister Joseph Therese of some very vile things to steal it from her.  But if anyone thinks about, whatever is said about Sister Joseph can then be said of Sister Millie.  So how can these pious frauds claim to believe in Sister Millie, the visionary of Our Lady of America, and then accuse her Sister-in-Arms with total fabrications?  Also, even if there are those associated with these pious frauds whom Catholics believe to be good men, be careful, because God is testing many through this devotion and money talks to many, even good men.  The ultimate proof these frauds are doing the work of the evil one is that they are the cause the devotion is not moving forward as they have forced Our Lady of America not to be enthroned in the Basilica but to be tied down in a legal battle in the courts.  This surely cannot please our God and Savior, Her Son.  May Our Lady of America grant Sister Joseph, who has been threatened and harassed by them, victory over them soon.

Thanks Simeon !!!

Whoever that fella is that has the OurLadyofAmereica.blogspot.com blog is taking these guys on single-handedly. 

According to him on his blog the GOONS are threatening Sister!#@&*#*_!!!

Sister Mary Joseph Therese is a True Religious !!!

She is a very loving person who lives the Gospel.  Me and my wife and little girl love her so much.

Get as many people as possible to pray for Sister and for these poor sinners that are coming against her and the Good God.

RbM