Actually, I am beginning to see that I was a fool to respond at all to the Original Post. I am beginning to form the opinion that it was simply a bait for response from outside your communion, or to seek some sort of general applause for a good shot of Catholic bashing…..
If the OP was deceptive and no real question was involved then I wonder that folks don’t see this as deceptive. Did you actually want the OP answered or was this simply a ruse to get a fight going?
Hi Owen,
Your comments surprise me - and I think you’re being a bit precious and very thin-skinned about all this. When Ken first posted the SMH article, he asked four questions. Your response was posted a mere 10 minutes later, when you replied :
The Miracle is attributed to Mary McKillop’s intercession. That is, one asks her to pray for them, she does and God answers her prayer.
Speaking for myself, I don’t put forward a Syd Ang viewpoint per se. It just happens that ( in the main ) the Syd Ang ‘viewpoint’ is aligned with what I - and many others here - believe.
I am stunned at some of the viewpoints that RC’s hold - not BECAUSE they are not held by Syd Ang’s ( or indeed most “Protestants” ) - but BECAUSE we see these beliefs as CONTRARY to the BIBLE. The integrity of the Bible is our stance and our point of reference.
If one can walk a mile in our shoes for a moment to see where ‘we’ are coming from, one would see that - if we believe the Bible to be the only RELIABLE and CONSISTENT source, then we MUST contend for the faith by testing all beliefs against the standard of the Bible being God’s INERRANT WORD - and not just a bunch of good suggestions.
We Protestants are disturbed that so many are in error - be they ‘lost’, in cults - or ‘misguided’ brothers and sisters ( like the RC church ) who have gone beyond the Scriptures - and ‘added’ to it.
We also find it so DIFFICULT to understand the RC position on some of these key areas of contention - when we don’t see any evidence for them in the Bible at all. Yes, we have a position that we hold onto - but it is one that we believe is derived from the Bible. And if we do ‘fight’ tooth and nail to maintain that position, is that a fault ? Or is it our meagre attempt to be true to God’s Word ? I would regard unswervingly holding onto the truth as being a positive thing - just look at the Book of Acts for further examples of the apostles doing just this.
Anyway, for the sake of review, let’s re-visit Ken’s original 4 questions :
I just want to ask the following four questions:
1: Does the person perform the miracle, or does God perform the miracle? Who should receive the credit?
2: (From New Testament - “saints” are simply all believers in Jesus Christ. If you truly believe in Jesus you receive eternal life)
Is there a greater reward waiting in heaven; greater than simply being accepted there?
3: Does the church of Rome say that “saints” attain different levels of priveledge in heaven, contrary to what the New Testament writers had to say on this issue? (including the teachings of Peter the apostle)
4: What priviledges do Catholics see Mary MacKillop receiving from God, as payment to her for being faithful to the Catholic Church, and for receiving their honor of being “sainted”?
They are indeed good questions to be asked - especially in light of what the RC is both claiming and proclaiming. Have we really dealt with all of them satisfactorily yet ? I think not.
Cheers for now, Kevin
( PS - I have to go out now for a long drive - so “I am just going outside and may be some time” to use a famous quote )
Hi Owen,
For myself, I understood you were not presenting your personal opinions, but (your understanding of) the RC position. I was trying to engage with those arguments, without assuming anything about your good self. This is perhaps not apparent from my posts. I apologize if I appeared to be participating in an attack.
They were good questions Kevin, which is why I answered them, in part anyways.
But I have been attacked several times and falsely accused of being an adherent to their dogma. This isn’t true and it shows a rather narrow mindedness if folks can’t see the difference between someone answering the question for the RC communion and someone who adheres to that belief.
Re this comment
Your comments surprise me - and I think you’re being a bit precious and very thin-skinned about all this.
I think you’re right and will leave them there for folks to see that fault in me. I love it that I have been called “thin skinned” cos it’s so rarely true of me. Yet I think it true in this instance.
Re; the walk a mile in our shoes. I think so. I try to understand this about you folks in Sydney, but there are times you make theology so important that you don’t see the other’s point of view except through your own glasses. That is not the way to understanding, it assumes the other point of view to be totally worthless and simply demands compliance. Theology is not so important that it should be a common point of divide in a conversation or a relationship. It really should not find its way into regular division and contention. Civil discussion is surely possible without ad hominem attacks and caricature claims.
The RC Communion, in one of its Catholic truth Society pamphlets (from the early 80’s as I recall, had a note that on the whole they were more akin to the Evangelical Anglicans (I believe the pamphlet cited the Sydney crowd) over the general thrust of Anglo-Catholicism as they A/C crowd tend to be too liberal and theologically unsound.
It’s in the places we are near that good things happen. I don’t know we should pretend that there are no differences, but to shove em out in front and wave them around with accusations is hardly useful.
Of course many Protestants are against RC teaching. Why else schism? But there has been here dredged up nonsense about the Inquisition as it it is current. Accusations against the RC communion as if those same faults aren’t present elsewhere in a different form.
I was not going to add any further comments to this post, as I have exhausted my argument, but I must reply to the last post from Owen.
You say, Owen:
But I have been attacked several times and falsely accused of being an adherent to their dogma. This isn’t true and it shows a rather narrow mindedness if folks can’t see the difference between someone answering the question for the RC communion and someone who adheres to that belief.
I don’t want to attack you because basically I think you are an intelligent, good bloke generally. But, your replies to me seemed indicate some agreement with the RC traditions. You have said that you believe that Saints and Mary may be prayed to in some form, because they are living and able to help. Am I incorrect in that assumption based on your posts.
I know you are of the Anglo/Catholic pursuasion, and Anglicanism in its original form, adheres to many Roman Catholic practices. Most of the Sydney Anglican direction is away from this nowdays, and tends to be more Calvisist or more like Presbyterian to my observation. Hence differences in the Anglican community.
The rearing of the ugly head of the Inquisition was made by myself because I feel it indicates the corruptness of the Catholic Church over a long period of time. The Catholic Church still, today, adheres to many of the tenets of those days, and has added new ‘traditions’ since - mainly in the area of the adoration of Mary. I question the leadership of the RC communion in the form of a Pope, because what they claim him to be doesnt stack up with who this person has been in the past. The Pope is the one who makes a person a Saint, and as we have said, this tradition is not based on any scripture.
People who believe that scripture is the main reliable source of authority as to the plans and wishes of God, reject the idea of Sainthood completely as does the New Testament.
the Inquisition is not happening today, but if you look at the history of how it ended, the Vatican objected to it ending - dragged kicking and screaming to stop it.
(I have heard that the office of the Inquistion has changed its name to something much more Christian these days, but that the current Pope was the head of this newly named institution before becoming Pope. I don’t know what this new office does though?)
Any way I sympathise with you having to go through the ordeal of debating this issue on several fronts, Owen. But, I think it is a valid argument to question RC beliefs on the grounds that many people are being misled, and are not informed of the full message that the New Testament offers - explaining God’s method and plan for saving the world.
The issue of people being given official Sainthood, when all believers are actually saints irks me. It is a religious mistake according to scripture, end of story.
Sainted one brings on an unholy reaction
SMH letters January 15, 2010
Father Donnelly (Letters, January 14), I will get off the backs of ignorant Catholics when they get as little front page media space for patent nonsense as do others in the tin-foil hat brigade, such as Scientologists and Raelians.
The scepticism exhibited in the letters section over the past few days has been the only critical coverage I have seen in mainstream media that is blinded by the same mindless populist patriotism that equates ‘‘our Mary MacKillop’’ with ‘‘our Nic’’ and ‘‘our Kylie’’ in unquestioning sycophancy.
By all means believe what you like, but don’t expect to go unchallenged if miracles and saints are served up as news. ( Angela Pollard, Dorroughby )
The secularists will get off the backs of Catholics who just want to enjoy their delusions when the Catholic Church gets off our backs about stem-cell research and contraception, and gay marriage, parenthood and adoption.
The church’s promotion of dark ages superstitious thinking about so-called miracles is a very successful way for it to boost its profile. It then uses that profile to push its political interests. There is nothing innocent about it at all. ( Tom Mangan, Woy Woy Bay )
It is not only unbelievers who criticise the Mary MacKillop event.Christians who believe that prayer should be to God and that his honour among us is at stake have strong feelings on the subject.
( David Morrison, Springwood** )
Sainthood recognises that a man, a woman or a child is in heaven because of special qualities (’‘Becoming a saint: who makes it and who doesn’t’‘, January 13).
I think heaven then would be more enjoyable with the likes of a Weary Dunlop or a Fred Hollows rather than enduring such a state with Pius XII or the clerical entourage imposed by an opportune Vatican selection committee. ( John Hill, Kensington )
Let me clarify a few things.
First, miracles are done by God, not by a saint. The saint merely intercedes with God.
Second, according to Catholic doctrine, the soul is judged immediately at death to go to heaven, purgatory or hell.
Chris Turner’s suggestion (Letters, January 13) that the dead rest until the day of judgment is Martin Luther’s doctrine, a major point of contention during the Reformation.
That is the whole point of sainthood: certifying that someone has reached heaven. Others also get there but are not certified.
If people are going to criticise the Catholic Church, they ought to know what they are arguing against, rather than manufacturing fictions. At least Luther knew what he was up against.
( Rob Turnbull, Hunters Hill )
** David Morrison from Springwood is well known to longtime readers of Sydney Anglican forums.
Thanks. At the time though I did want to have a go cos I was pretty pissed off at some of the stuff you’d written so you have my apologies. All up it was just a conversation and ultimately- not that important.
Am I incorrect in that assumption based on your posts.
Re asking for the prayers of the saints, yes I think this is OK. I don’t think it hugely important. I think the quote from Kev’s article assists.
according to Catholic doctrine, the soul is judged immediately at death to go to heaven, purgatory or hell.
I have sympathy with this view. I don’t go in for the soul sleep doctrines or any variant. Mind you, I also suspect that the dead are outside time, so in a way, the show is over, in another- it is still happening.
I don’t know what this new office does though
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
It is a somewhat more benign office than once it was. It is probably worth considering that although the church initiated it, the Inquisition became a very powerful body and resisted many attempts to have it overthrown from within the church. Basically its enemies within the church would have had a hard time, given that it obtained rather torturous powers. If you put your hand up to say it should go, it had the capacity to remove that hand. It was hardly universally welcomed by all the church. I understand that it was hated by many, but like a corrupt and powerful militia, it was unstoppable. I think that it behoves us to remember that.
It was similar to the powers say that a Witchfinder had in England. With the same twisted logic driving it. If you acted against the office, then you were guilty by default.
But, I think it is a valid argument to question RC beliefs
Indeed. In fact I believe this to be true of any denominational doctrines.
Any way I sympathise with you having to go through the ordeal of debating this issue on several fronts
Thanks, although I felt like I was being asked to debate but was still trying to get folks to try first to see the other point of view first. I cannot understand how anyone can think a debate fruitful if the other side is not understood- and understood by their own logic. I have a significant collection of cult books and volumes by other world religeons. I do this because I grew tired of reading analyses of other faiths by folks of similar persuasion to mine. Their commentaries are typically attacking caricatures of whatever they wrote about and I hardly think that is worthwhile.
I remember once chipping a minister who in a sermon, claimed that Taoism had good and evil as opposites. I suggested if he was going to talk about what he thought wrong about other faiths, he should do so truthfully or say nothing about them. He didn’t agree, and I continue to find that attitude appalling and demeaning for everyone concerned.
Once at a seminar on Mormonism, I suggested that it would be fruitful to read Mormon works and use their own logic to manage discussions. I was appalled that folks thought this foolish. I have found this useful over and over again.
I have even, recently, found a useful work about the Creationist viewpoint by the Theos think tank. I have found this useful as it represents creationist opinions without much of the clutter of their arguments which usually leave me cold.
There is much to contest over RC Communion belief, but this should be done respectfully. If it isn’t done that way then anyone from the RC Communion is hardly likely to find the opposing team sufficiently admirable to want to emulate or return respect to.
We have to be willing to recognise that there may well be flaws in our own faith as well.
and I’d suggest that doctrine isn’t as important as many would have it.
At #80 yesterday I posted letters from Friday’s SMH. Having earlier posted Wednesday’s lot at post #57, I feel that I ought to present the letters from Thursday as well in order to complete the set :
Pray for the cynics from SMH Letters Thursday 14 January 2010
If, early this week, I’d had a naive bookie, I’d have taken a shade of odds that every Herald letter responding to the Mary MacKillop ‘‘miracle’’ would have been in the negative (January 13). Boy, oh boy, I’d have made a small fortune.
People pray for all kinds of different reasons. I’ve prayed for a fine day for an important event. Silly? Possibly. Sometimes you seem to get a result, sometimes you don’t, but it concentrates your thoughts and your energy, and, at worst, it sets you apart from an incredibly intolerant bunch of cynical letter writers.
The comfort derived by millions of people from prayer is reason enough for its continuance and, indeed, its veneration, regardless of whether or not the occasional perceived ‘‘miracle’’ is given official credence.
And, let’s face it, Chris, Tobias, Nathan, Katherine and Maralyn, to pray for something is not a hanging offence. ( Rosemary O’Brien, Georges Hall )
Dear atheists, secularists and other non-believers, How about getting off our backs and leaving us ignorant Catholics to enjoy our delusions in peace? Nobody is asking you to believe in our miraculous events. ( Reverend Father Leo Donnelly, Catholic Presbytery, Port Macquarie )
And NOW Saturday’s offering :
Not making it up
I loved Rob Turnbull’s letter (January 15). Started with stories of saints and miracles. Went on with the story of souls going to heaven or purgatory. Then exhorted the rest of us not to manufacture fictions. Wonderful. ( David Knowles, Chittaway Bay )
For those anxious about God, Christianity and miracles hogging newspaper headlines and letters pages, they can breathe easy. As much as churches would wish otherwise, these subjects hardly feature among the top 10 ‘‘trending topics’’ of the real gauge of buzz-worthiness, Twitter. If people are not regularly microblogging about God, it probably means God is a non-issue and a dead letter. ( Hendry Wan, Matraville )
It will be a miracle if the Catholic Church survives the Mother Mary mess with its dignity intact. ( Glen Coulton, Marmong Point )
And completed with the Saturday summary of the week’s trend in ‘letters to the editor’ :
POSTSCRIPT
HAZY reminiscences about celebrating Guy Fawkes night many years ago gave no hint of the real fireworks to come this week as readers debated miracles, or the lack thereof.
The story of Kathleen Evans, who was diagnosed with inoperable cancer in 1993 but is still alive and healthy all these years later after praying to Mary MacKillop, polarised letter-writers. For each true believer there was a confirmed cynic. After some heavy to-ing and fro-ing, a Port Macquarie priest, Father Leo Donnelly, pleaded - possibly tongue-in-cheek - for Catholics to be allowed to ‘‘enjoy our delusions in peace’‘, which served only to further inflame emotions.
Many felt the Catholic Church had little right to be left alone considering its history of activism in many secular matters. The argy-bargy was probably best summed up by a Davidson reader, Tony Clifford, whose mum used to tell him: ‘‘For those of faith, no proof is necessary and for those without, no proof is possible.’‘
Smoking also sparked some argument, be it about whether high-rollers at the casino had the right to puff and gamble or whether the federal Health Department had the right to ban employees from lighting up during work hours. A law lecturer, Margaret Kelly, who questioned the ban, citing the smoko as a well-recognised Australian custom, won few fans.
Unlike religion, where supporters and detractors fall into some kind of balance, the ranks of those supporting the right to smoke have dwindled down to only a few.
Jennie Curtin, acting letters editor
Apart from the many viewpoints set out in these letters during this week, they also present us with examples of how to BRIEFLY express one’s point of view - and get it published !
As an aside to the on-going discussion about “saints” and “Catholic interpretations”, I have just read a disturbing ‘TIMES’ article :
From The Times January 15, 2010 by Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
Voodoo faith ‘could hinder Haiti’s recovery from quake’
Haiti is facing a spiritual as well as a physical crisis with the collapse of many of its most potent religious symbols in the earthquake, according to a leading Labour peer and Methodist minister.
Even those who have retained their faith in the face of the overwhelming crisis will struggle to find somewhere to worship on Sunday, with so many churches including both the Catholic and Anglican cathedrals destroyed, and many others severely damaged.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, superintendent minister of Wesley’s chapel in the City of London, who was ordained in Haiti and wrote a biography of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the country’s first democratically-elected President, said he feared the fatalism inspired by the voodoo religion would militate against recovery.
The death of the Catholic archbishop along with the destruction of the cathedrals will be seen as potent symbols of the failure of those religions to withstand an act of God, he warned.
Voodoo is fundamentally a home-based cult where each family has their own collection of household gods, many of them Catholic saints. In many households, it sits comfortably alongside a family’s Catholic observance.
The Catholic church officially backs the right of families to practise voodoo. Protestant missionaries have been less sympathetic, classifying family spirits as demons.
More than eight in ten Haitians are officially Catholic, with about one in ten Protestants. But an unknown number also practise some voodoo rituals as well…..........
This sad news just reinforces what a lot of Christians have been saying about certain Catholic practices - and how far from Biblical truth they appear to have strayed. And it is why Protestants continue to PROTEST about these heresies - for that is what they are.
[ Edited: 16 January 2010 04:22 PM by Kevin Goddard]
This sad news just reinforces what a lot of Christians have been saying about certain Catholic practices - and how far from Biblical truth they appear to have strayed.
In what way? The potential for any belief to fall into idolatory is always present.
Voodoo is a mish mash of stuff. The island is mostly Catholic so it is mostly catholic stuff that has been turned into idols. But what about the Protestant voodooists? if they, for example have the Bible, Wesley, Luther or Strongs Concordance as their idols, does that make these wrong? There is capacity for the logic of abhorrence at all things RC to be turned around onto all things protestant.
I am playing Devils Advocate here (incidentally- that term originates from the canonisation process itself.) I think the capacity to turn named saints into demigods is highly likely. They are already psychologically imbued with a personality and a history and they have an area of interest.
This is not intended by RC dogma, but the man on the street belief rarely reflects church teaching- no matter which church you attend. (This to me is a fact cos I have done counselling with many believers from many denominations and have been very surprised at the things they say they believe). I now understand the value of the Creeds more than ever as a result. The Creeds call believers to a single reference point.
Mind you, I remember one Syd Ang dude telling me, when I lived there, that he thought the Catholics had no right to say the Creeds. I thought that hilarious since they are Catholic in origin and reflect the most basic elements of theirs and Protestant beliefs (and the Orthodox- with one sentence altered)
1. .The Catholic experience
.
•Under the French slaves were forbidden from practicing Voodoo. Nonetheless Voodoo survived. The colonists did allow occasional dances on the weekends. These dances were actually Voodoo services!
•After the liberation of 1804 all white people were kicked out of Haiti and many were killed. This included Roman Catholic priests. Thus in 1804 the Vatican broke with Haiti and did not establish relations with her again until 1860.
•During this 56 year period houngans and mambos built up the public religion of Haiti, Voodoo, in a weird amalgamation of African spirit religion and Catholicism. Virtually all loa became associated with Catholic saints (Dumballah the snake loa is St. Patrick; Erzulie, the earth mother is the Virgin Mary). The most important consequence of this is that Haitians see nothing odd at all with practicing Voodoo and Catholicism side by side and are often very devout about each of them.
I can’t explain this, I only describe it.
•From time to time from 1860 until the late 1940s the Catholic Church waged campaigns against Voodoo. They never came to anything.
•In 1949 some elements of the Catholic Church waged an all out physical, holy war against Voodoo. They burned peristyle, Voodoo shrines, beat (some say even killed) houngans and mambo, demanded their ostracism from society and shot things up. But, they lost. Voodoo went under-ground to some extent, but it grew in popularity, in large measure because of the oppression.
•By the early 1950s the Catholic hierarchy halted this war, got rid of these priest warriors and made their peace with Voodoo. Voodoo drums and melodies were incorporated into Catholic church services. The Catholics took the position, if you can’t defeat them, co-opt them. Relative peace has held between the Catholics and serviteurs ever since.
2.The Protestants. •Until the 1970s Haiti was nearly 100% Catholic.
•In the 1970s evangelical Protestantism came to Haiti. After Reagan came to power evangelization mushroomed.
•Evangelical Protestants are bitter enemies of Voodoo and denounce it all the time as devil worship. Many of these people claim that Haiti’s misery is because she is being punished by God for the sins of her Voodoo serviteurs.
•Protestantism has come to Haiti as a serious business. Evangelical Protestants groups own 7 of Haiti’s 11 radio stations and have made significant gains in conversions.
•Today most observers believe that at least 15% of the Christians in Haiti are Protestant evangelicals.
Three letters and all anti-religious (January 16-17). So much for impartiality. Well, I believe in miracles, and after reading Mary MacKillop by Paul Gardiner (an interesting 500 pages), I think another miracle was Mary’s ability to survive nepotism, bigotry, hostility, poverty and illness with faith and love. ( Margaret Walker, Pennant Hills )
A recent correspondent has indicated that he will start believing in the power of miracles when Mary MacKillop can restore a lost limb to an amputee. I sense a demarcation dispute here. Should not lost articles be the domain of Saint Anthony? ( Anthony Dale, Inverell )
By David Murray in London From:The Daily Telegraph February 19, 2010 9:53PM
MARY MacKillop will become Australia’s first saint, Pope Benedict XVI declared in a ceremony at the Vatican.
The Pope formally announced he would canonise the Melbourne-born nun on October 17, in a service in St Peter’s Square that could draw thousands of Australian pilgrims.
When did “gullibility” become a fruit of the spirit ? Benny Hinn will be pleased.
“And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.” 2 Peter 2:2
The miracle of the holy house of Loreto is a miracle everyone could believe: LORETO HOLY HOUSE
Tradition tells us that on May 10, 1291, the Holy House of Nazareth was raised from its foundations in Nazareth and transported by Angels across the Mediterranean from Palestine to Dalmatia to the small town of Tersatto. The pastor of the Church of St. George, at Tersatto, Alexander Georgevich, was puzzled by the sudden presence of what looked like a tiny church and prayed for enlightenment. His prayers were answered when the Blessed Virgin appeared to him in sleep and told him that this was indeed the Holy House of Nazareth where the Annunciation took place and it was brought here through the power of God. To confirm what she was telling him, he would be restored to health. At that moment, Father Alexander was cured of an illness which he had suffered for many years.
With the Moslems taking over Albania in 1294 and the possibility of profanation, the House disappeared from Tersatto. According to some shepherds, it was seen on December 10, 1294, being borne aloft by Angels across the Adriatic sea and came to rest in a wooded area four miles from Recanati, Italy. The news spread fast and thousands came to examine the tiny house which resembled a church. The House became a place of pilgrimage and many miracles took place there. Bandits from the nearby wooded area began to plague the pilgrims, so the House was borne to a safer spot a short distance away. But the spot where the House was finally to rest was still not settled since the two brothers who owned the land were quarreling. The House was moved a third time to the site it now occupies. The brothers became reconciled as soon as the House settled in its final location. Incidentally, wherever it landed, the Holy House rested miraculously on the ground, without a foundation.
Once again miracles attended the presence of the House, and the townspeople sent a deputation of men to Tersatto and then to Nazareth to determine for certain the origin of the Holy House. Sixteen men, all reliable citizens, took with them measurements and full details of the House, and after several months arrived back with the report that in their opinion, the House had really come from Nazareth.
Over the centuries, many Pontiffs have testified to the authenticity of the Holy House and the miracles that have been attributed to it. The devotion and respect of the Pontiffs for the Holy House may be gathered from the numerous indulgences granted to those visiting the Holy House. The first were granted by Pope Benedict XII, then followed by Urban VI who granted certain indulgences for the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. These indulgences were confirmed by Popes Boniface IX and Martin V: An enumeration of the many popes over the centuries that have shown special interest and support of the authenticity of Loreto by their words and actions
Wow, where do I sign up for this doozie!!
[ Edited: 21 February 2010 08:23 AM by Ken Austin]
Sixteen men, all reliable citizens, took with them measurements and full details of the House, and after several months arrived back with the report that in their opinion, the House had really come from Nazareth.
Actually Ken, what we have here is ‘verifiable’ evidence of the very first building Stimulus Package - that later on would inspire Kevin Rudd to hand out taxpayers’ money with such largesse*** - to an even more gullible audience ;)
I too am most impressed that a ‘committee’ ( even in 1291 ) could possibly come back and deliver such a ‘favourable’ report. ( Pass the brown envelope please. )
Wow, where do I sign up for this doozie!!
Well firstly Ken, you need to leave your brains on the hatrack near the front door. And then you open your wallet and indulgently say “help yourself”.
Why haven’t they called in Fair Trading or the Fraud Squad ?
What they really needed was a Reformation. Oh wait a minute, that did happen - but it was mostly ignored - even unto this very day.
[ Edited: 21 February 2010 12:05 PM by Kevin Goddard]
I have no trouble believing in the miracles of the Bible, even as a “scientist”. Simply because God can do anything. That’s basic. I cannot criticise other religions for their miracles. Who am I to judge. So long as Gods command “you shall have no other Gods before me” is complied with in spirit and practise.
I guess understanding miracles is really understanding God. As God is in control of everything that happens, no miracle could happen without His concession.
And we see that character, exposed in the Bible.
Why did God want to, say, have the Virgin appear to children in Catholic countries, and not elsewhere? Why would God bother to fly a house out from Palestine to Italy, which belonged to a personage (apparently ) that was related to the Lord?
I think I know God’s character, and these events are outside of what we know if Him. But they profit the Roman Church, and were testified to by largely an ignorant and superstitious populace, which were under Rome’s spell. Go figure?
Why did God want to, say, have the Virgin appear to children in Catholic countries, and not elsewhere?
Unfair. Apparitions of the Virgin have been claimed for even Australia. And the children you mentioned were probably the ones at Fatima. These were denounced by the church for years.
BTW, after Christ’s resurrection He only appeared to believers. I cite this to indicate that your case is flawed if you stake it on
Why did God want to, say, have the Virgin appear to children in Catholic countries, and not elsewhere?
I suspect a more interesting case can be made by comparing the apparitions and the claims attributed to the Blessed Virgin. I believe there were several prophecies. Did they come to pass I wonder?
Fancy some Biblical poker ? I’ll see your “Holy House of Nazareth” and raise you an artefact made from “the remains of the original Ark of the Covenant” :
Thursday, 18 February 2010 Zimbabwe displays ‘Ark of Covenant replica’
A wooden object ( thought to be oldest ever found in sub-Saharan Africa ) claimed to be a replica of the Biblical Ark of the Covenant has gone on display at a Zimbabwe museum. The “ngoma lungundu” belongs to the Lemba people - black Africans who claim Jewish ancestry.
They say the vessel was built almost 700 years ago from the remains of the original Ark, which the Bible says was used to store Moses’ 10 Commandments. For decades the ancient vessel was thought to be lost, until it was found in a storeroom in Harare recently.
Tudor Parfitt, who rediscovered the artefact three years ago, told the BBC he believed it was the oldest wooden object ever found in sub-Saharan Africa.
“On each corner there is the remnants of a wooden ring, and obviously at one point, it was carried by inserting poles through these two rings on either side,” he said.
“Of course in the biblical account, that’s precisely how the Ark of the Covenant was carried across the wilderness.” The BBC’s Steve Vickers in Harare says the vessel was unveiled to great fanfare at the city’s Museum of Human Science. Lemba leaders from across Zimbabwe attended the ceremony, along with government ministers.
Colonial officials originally put the vessel on display at a museum in Bulawayo. It was last photographed in 1949, but during the war of independence it was hurriedly taken to Harare with other artefacts for their protection. It was forgotten about in the move and the Lemba people thought their sacred relic had been lost
However Ken, on reflection, I think that your ‘full house’ beats my ‘joker’.
I just want a t-shirt, exactly like the one worn in the illustration, it looks groovy and funky, a bit hippie maybe. I would be a hit if I attend a catholic church, maybe. Owen, do you have one?
Mary is thought by Catholics to have made her first apparition within a generation of the death of Paul and the apostles on a column perhaps more apt for a sceptic philosopher in what is now the Aragonese city of Zaragossa. Since then she has been held to appear on a roughly bicentianeal basis throughout Europe with some notable gigs in Latin America, none in Africa or Asia.
This might tell us more about the kind of people who see, expect to see or have thought they have seen her than it would indicate any particular favouritism on her part….
There are some who dismiss out of hand the idea that she appears at all. This is for several reasons. The most obvious being that some do not believe in her & such fall under the category of sneering infidels and sinners.
The second which ought bear serious consideration by any who do believe in her, is what might be called the protestant approach that scripturally and theologically the marian cult is not satisfactorily compatible with christian thought in that intercession of demigod or semigoddess characters is an internalisation of pagan thought and dilutes the central tenets of Christ’s mystery & redemption. In to that later category would fall those boring people who still quibble over the question of where she went & the thorny concept of did she die.
For some she ascended in much the same way as Jesus and Muhamad to go out there into outer space or heaven and though forever worrying about us is not really expected to offer an appearance this side of Nostradamus.
[ Edited: 24 February 2010 09:14 AM by Ken Austin]
Apart from RC “holy souvenir” enterprises, just ask Binny Hinn, Peter Popov, Joyce Meyer and many, many other tele-evangelists. They will testify that “Living the good life” for Jesus - RIGHT HERE ... RIGHT NOW - is worth millions !!! ( And the poor can just wait until Heaven for their reward. )
( Ever wondered why the American dollar note has “In God we trust” emblazoned on it ? As one wag said, “In God we trust - all others pay cash !” )
Canonisation of Australia’s first saint sparks religious debate
February 23, 2010
Over the weekend it was confirmed that Australia would get it’s first saint. However, the Vatican’s decision to canonise Mary McKillop has highlighted tension between Christian churches on the very question of sainthood. The Catholic Church says its saints are an intermediary with God. But the Baptist, Anglican and Uniting churches say all Christians are saints and the idea of canonisation is misleading.
Presenter: Simon Lauder
Speakers: Dr Glenn Davies, Anglican Bishop of North Sydney; Dr Brian Winslade; National Director, Baptist Union of Australia; Chris Udy, Minister at Killara Uniting Church, Sydney; Philip Wilson, Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide
SIMON LAUDER: No-one is questioning the saintly value of Mary MacKillop’s achievements but the Anglican Bishop of North Sydney Dr Glenn Davies has a lot of questions about the Catholic notion of sainthood. He says it goes against the teachings of the Bible.
GLENN DAVIES: The Bible makes it very clear that people who believe in Jesus are saints. Sainthood is something which is a gift of God.
What the Church is doing, the Roman Catholic Church in this case is making up human regulations to determine who is a saint and who is not.
SIMON LAUDER: What’s essentially wrong with Catholics and Anglicans having a different definition for the word saint?
GLENN DAVIES: Well the question is do you want God’s definition or do you want human definition ? I much prefer God’s definition any day.
And what the Roman Catholics by saying only Mary is the only Australian saint, you’re saying to every believer in Australia: you are not a saint. Now that is terrible.
SIMON LAUDER: The national director for the Baptist Union of Australia Dr Brian Winslade is also dismissive of canonisation.
BRIAN WINSLADE: The hype and the media interest and the extravagant pilgrimages that are now being pulled together I think are, well they’re nice but I don’t think they’re particularly helpful or efficacious when it comes to faith and the true meaning of Christianity. I think it’s somewhat of a waste of time.
SIMON LAUDER: Chris Udy is the Minister at Killara Uniting Church in Sydney. He’s concerned by the idea that a saint can be a middle man in prayer.
CHRIS UDY: It’s the extra magicality of it that’s problematic or certainly for me; the idea that saints can somehow put you further up the pecking order. I think that would be the issue, the idea that you can somehow peddle influence with God. I think that would be the problem.
In fact it turns upside down a fairly fundamental issue in the life of Jesus and that is that it was actually the least powerful, the people who had least influence and least authority, they were the ones that he spent his time with.
SIMON LAUDER: The Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide Philip Wilson says the Church still believes all Christians can be saintly but canonised saints are more holy.
PHILIP WILSON: So it’s a way in which everyone is called to be holy, to be a saint. But we just have this tradition in the Catholic faith where we recognise people who have been outstanding in that holiness and are then presented to everybody else as people to whom we can go to help us in our prayers.
And to whom we can turn in order to get a good example about the way that we’re meant to live our lives.
SIMON LAUDER: The Vatican’s conclusion that Mary MacKillop is eligible to be a saint because she performed two miracles invites argument from those who question the very existence of miracles. Terry Kelly is the president of the Victorian Sceptics Society.
TERRY KELLY: If someone believes that miracles are possible or that certain practices can cure you they might neglect to get the proper medical treatment that they need with dire consequences perhaps in terms of death or pain or discomfort.
SIMON LAUDER: Uniting Church Minister Chris Udy does believe in miracles but he has a problem with the process of identifying them.
CHRIS UDY: There are lots of spontaneous remissions from cancer and there are lots of other reasons why people might be relieved of their illness or suffering. There’s no properly, there’s no properly conducted trial is there? There’s no scientific basis for saying that sort of thing.
SIMON LAUDER: The Catholic Church hasn’t released the supporting evidence for the claim of a second miracle from Mary MacKillop - that she cured a woman with inoperable cancer.
Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson says that’s not necessary.
PHILIP WILSON: So if people are ill we believe that God has given us the skills through medicine and all of its associated sciences to deal with all these. But we also believe that as well as resorting to that, that we can ask God to help us directly because of the special relationship that each of us have with Jesus.
SIMON LAUDER: Doesn’t that call into question whether or not it was a miracle that people have been cured by cancer or really just that their faith was one element in a positive outlook of some sort?
PHILIP WILSON: The issues about miracles and decisions about them are that the scrutiny that they’re subjected to is to say that there’s no medical explanation for this cure to take place; that there can be no other explanation than simply through the intercession of this particular person; that God acted in the case of these people and was able to cure them.
SIMON LAUDER: The documents supporting that decision haven’t been publicly released. Why shouldn’t they be to bolster the public confidence in this idea of miracles?
PHILIP WILSON: Oh I think it’s just been part of our history and tradition that we know that these people are responsible and upright people who do these works and that their judgements are ones that can be trusted.
SIMON LAUDER: Mary MacKillop’s canonisation ceremony will be held on the 17th of October.
Mary Mackillop’s big day is coming soon - October 17.
‘A Saint for all Australians’
It seems like a marketing ploy to me. Not dissimilar to how relics etc. were peddled in the past.
Interesting the Pope is promoting an Australian saint, and an English prospective saint (Cardinal Newman). It seems part of a strategy to aggressively promote catholicism in these previously predominantly protestant countries.
It bothers me, that this ‘Sainthood’ message seems strangely in tune with this post-modern age. I can’t explain it, but it seems to be.
I just like the fact that ( as we read in the weekend papers ) that Mary and her whole order were excommunicated by the Catholic Church because she reported a paedophile priest for having sex with children. Seems to be a long time problem that has continually been swept under the carpet. Blessed are the whistle blowers !
[null]London 2012 Olympics: 'Snow bird' Skelton finds fabulous form in FloridaTelegraph.co.uk (blog)[{}]... owns most of the top rides of 2004 Olympic champion Rodrigo Pessoa); Tom Tisbo, CEO of Suncast, one of America's largest producer of domestic durables; and Kimberley Boyer, grand-daughter of the billionaire evangelical financier Robert Van Kampen.
[null]Mitt's Muffled SoulNew York Times[{}]Christ or Christianity came up repeatedly. Four years later, he still avoids the word, trumpeting his faithfulness without specifying the faith. What's surprising is that no one around him — not reporters, not rivals — talks about it all that much, ...
RSS Feed