- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Wednesday, July 27, 2022
Testify is Not the Greatest Fan, But Also Not the Greatest Foe of Marian Apparitions
Excuses for this getting published without the html done, I was planning the publication in advance and forgot it. Then I looked on the post ...
He only deals with them because some counterapologists have said basically "as a Protestant, you don't believe Marian apparitions, but their evidence is comparable to that for the Resurrection appearances" - here is his answer:
Appearances of Mary vs. Jesus’ Resurrection Appearances
25th July 2022 | Testify
And here are some of mine to him:
4:14 With regards to Medjugorje, there is a difference in so far that the supposed authorities of the Church (hardly many remaining at more than 20 years after Pius XII died and more than 11 years after the new liturgy, in 1981, when apparitions begun, but still) actually have said no to the Medjugorje apparition.
So, a Catholic believing Fatima and Lourdes could agree with Samples that the apparition in Medjugorje was demonic.
Before doing so myself, I would want to know, how well did he check that the book recommended to one of the seers was occultic, was it just the title, or did he look up things, and was the seer in question seduced to occultism or just tipped off as to some move that both he or she and some occultist could have had to face?
I am very far from a Medjugorje fan.
5:27 The Blessed Virgin didn't eat with the seers of Fatima. But they did pray the rosary and see Her move the beads along, and they did converse.
It is also to be noted, they stuck (as pre-puberty children) to their story in a Masonic dominated country where a nearby mayor could be a very anticlerical thug and threaten them with death if they didn't recant. Sure, he was not able to carry that out, but they didn't know, and if they had tried to police report him, their complaint would have been laughed out "of course he didn't say that, ha ha ha ..." - so, the parallel with seers in a Protestant country who could be killed for converting to Catholicism (like England in some periods of the Penal laws) is not completely lacking.
Now, there is a somewhat bad parallel in your "what would convince me" scenario, namely you'd require the seers to be Protestants. That's like requiring that the 11, the 500 and the rest were "Jews" not in the ethnic sense, but in the sense of having taken their distance from Christianity, as Judaism did before St. John wrote his Gospel (hence his use of Jews as narrator corresponds very well to how Synoptics use "Pharisees and Sadducees" or other combinations of entities within the ethnically Jewish community). This was not the case with Christ's disciples.
5:39 Indeed, none except St. James the Greater was acquainted with the Blessed Virgin in Her earthly life.
And he had after all also already seen Our Lord, risen from the grave.
The Marian apparitions, however, need less proof, since they are not there to found a new theological doctrine. They have (apart from Medjugorje, with claims "Catholics, Orthodox and Muslims are equally dear" to God or to Mary) only confirmed Catholic dogma already believed and accepted for other reasons.
For instance, the Lourdes apparition said the words "Que soy era Immaculada Councepciou" / "that I am the Immaculate Conception" on March 25th 1858.
But Ineffabilis Deus was already from December 8, 1854, more than three years earlier.
And the doctrine was believed before being so raised to status of dogma for centuries before that.
Hence that there need be less proof for the Marian apparitions than for Our Lord's resurrection.
5:45 "Mary was still alive at the time"
Yes, St. James of Zebedee was one apostle who was not present at Her deathbed and empty tomb. He had already been martyred.
Her appearance was not an appearance from Heaven, but a bilocation, like (if it's true) Padre Pio appearing in Chicago to a dying Italian lady who could get no Italian priest to confess to, for some reason.
8:07 I Cor 15:5 mentions "the twelve" - we can discount the theory it means "11 + Judas Ischariot" (I think), so do you think it means 11 + Matthias or that he used "the twelve" as a generic term, even if they were 11 on the occasion?
On some occasions Matthias and Joseph Barsabas Justus must have been with them, Acts 1:23 is not wrong.
10:09 The "twelve" (11 + Matthias, 11 + Justus, 11 simply) didn't have any Antichristian Jewish carreeres to defend by not claiming the Resurrection. Hence your parallel request of a carreere as Protestant pastor is faulty.
They did risk their lives, though, at least after some time, and even after the Crucifixion, it should be evident they would be doing so sooner or later.