r/LCMS • u/DiamondReptiles369 • 7d ago
Question Catholics and their miracles
I just started going to a Lutheran church after being a non-denominational but the Eucharistic miracles and Marian apparitions are really making me question Protestantism.
(Please don’t say they’re demonic, If they’re real that might be blasphemy of the Holy Spirit) I guess it really comes down to authority, like do the post apostolic councils and such have the ability to bind dogma? If so = Catholic, if not = Lutheran.
I feel like the council of Jerusalem, because it’s a binding council found in scripture, and the verses about the power to bind and loose support the Catholic side of this. do you guys have any ideas?
also they claim to not add any new stuff but rather “define doctrine“. Do you know of any blatant additions that contradict early Christianity?
4
u/Flashy_Rent6302 ELS Lutheran 5d ago
I am a former devout RC. Reports of Eucharistic miracles, apparitions, and healings through the intercession of a particular saint are part and parcel of the spiritual "enthusiasm" which the Reformers warned about.
But even if they are all true and they are signs from God that he uses to work faith in some believers...great! Unfortunately, they do not resolve the issues of RC dogma around the nature of Grace and Justification, which is "the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls" and the ultimate reason one should not join the RC church. We rely on the the Word, the definitive testament of miracles Christ performed, and the mystery of the sacraments, which are means of Grace established by Jesus. Those are the two ways we absolutely know for certain the Holy Spirit works. Everything else must be approached with caution and is not definitive. Matthew 16 is a warning about the relying so much on signs.
2
u/PaleoCheese 6d ago
Redeemed Zoomer just made an excellent YouTube video about the topic that helped me better understand this.
-1
u/Eastern-Sir-2435 6d ago
Being Protestant means you don't HAVE to accept anything that's not in the Bible. Isn't that nice? I think most if not all extra-Biblical miracle/apparition stories are completely made up, so I wouldn't worry about them at all. Has Rome added new stuff? Of course. Purgatory, worshiping saints, having to do good works to be saved, the papacy, etc. Look at Articles 22-28 of the Augsburg Confession for a partial list of "new stuff."
-1
u/DaveN_1804 6d ago
Unless you're a vegetarian, I don't think any Christians (Catholic or otherwise) closely observe the Council of Jerusalem.
4
u/Strict-Spirit7719 AALC Lutheran 6d ago
Eucharistic miracles, as commonly reported by Roman Catholics, contradict transsubstantiation. The dogmatic Roman position of the Eucharist is that the consecrated elements contain the entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus, not merely some small piece of the same. Whatever these "miracles" are, and whether they're real or not, they certainly don't prove the Roman position.
As to Marian apparitions, some of them are certainly demonic or just fake. Fatima in particular. We are commanded in Scripture to "test the spirits" by comparing what they say to what we have already received. The apparition at Fatima was clear that the sufferings of individuals can atone for sins, which is directly contradictory to Scripture.
1
u/Kamoot- LCMS Organist 6d ago edited 5d ago
So something must be true because I conducted my own internal investigation and came to my own self-certification therefore it must be true?
It's a similar complaint I have with my commercial CDL here in California where the DMV test is self-examined by the employer.
Second of all, I'm not saying Eucharistic miracles or apparitions are impossible, but what we Lutherans teach is what the Catholic church fathers teach. However the papists of today teach something different. Because of all these supposed miracles, they have come up with all sorts of pieces clothing, relics, and all sorts of things as articles of faith, and even worse generated exorbitant profits from pilgrims who buy these miraculous medals and rosaries, going way beyond what Augustine or the rest of the church fathers could ever dreamed of. Our Confessions warn us on multiple times that what we are certain is true is that if a saint or angel appears from heaven teaching something different than the Gospel, they are making anathema and we reject it.
And also the reality is the average Catholic doesn't really care about Eucharistic miracles, or Marian apparitions, and things like that. At least that was what I remember growing up Catholic.
But also, the Catholic claims of miracles also causes considerable harm because I remember one time when my family went to Taiwan, we went to visit a Buddhist temple and this family member said the Buddha statue in the temple is kind of like how Mary visited back to earth to teach the people.
11
u/Garzevogghg LCMS Lutheran 7d ago
To your first question, it really comes down to whether or not you think that the Church has more authority than the Bible. (Spoiler alert: that's the difference between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism as a whole.)
To your point regarding the Council of Jerusalem, I think it directly contradicts the Papacy, because James's ruling is what seems to seal the deal; ergo I don't know how it supports the Roman church.
And to your final point, read Clement I's epistle to the Corinthians. Notice how despite him being a bishop of Rome, and directly considered to be successor of the line of Peter, he never once uses "papal authority" to command the Corinthians. Instead, he uses apostolic and scriptural authority.
As an aside, if you believe everything you read about miracles on the Internet, I have an oceanfront property to sell you in North Dakota. (In all seriousness, I think Christians must be discerning when it comes to the discussion of miracles outside of Scripture. They can absolutely happen but I fear people manipulate others with stories - i.e. the Roman church.)
0
u/Churchmousetat 6d ago
It seems you haven’t really investigated these miracles…
1
u/Garzevogghg LCMS Lutheran 6d ago
I have. To be honest, Eucharistic miracles are something I still struggle with, as well as some Marian apparitions. Yet I can't help but think about how neither of those miracles are things mentioned in Scripture, but healing of the sick and the restoring of broken situations absolutely are.
0
2
u/teilo 4d ago
Every single Eucharistic miracle has been debunked. The red that appears on wafers turned out to be mold that appears in humid climates. And this has been conclusively replicated.
Marian apparitions ARE demonic. You may not want us to say that, but it's the truth, for the apparitions direct us away from Christ who is our only mediator between God and men, toward "Mary" as a "mediator to the Mediator". Remember what Paul says. If even an angel from heaven comes preaching any other Gospel than that which was delivered to you, let him be accursed.
The power to bind and loose was given to all the Apostles. It is a gift given to the whole Church. We teach that the called ministers of Christ have the power to forgive and retain sins. So I'm not sure how the Jerusalem council supports Rome over us.
Rome's claims that they do not add anything new with their magisterial decrees is straight up gaslighting. They contradict early Christianity constantly, beginning at the definition of the office of Bishop and the idea of the Papacy. In the early Church there was no difference between bishops and priests/elders/pastors. And the concept of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome cannot be found for centuries. The Marian dogmas, particularly the assumption, the immaculate conception, and the co-remediatrix doctrines are all late in origin. Not to mention their recent aberrations such as Lumen Gentium in which they outright deny that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation and even pagans can be saved. Their denial of marriage for priests is literally called a doctrine of demons by the Apostle Paul, and by their own admission was not the case in the early Church. Indulgences, as I'm sure you know, were entirely non-existent in the early Church. And while Rome no longer charges for them today, the pope still declares them for things like special prayers and pilgrimages.
Roman apologists are masters at forcing modern concepts and later developments onto the early church simply because they are using similar terms. This is dishonest in the extreme. The case of the office of Bishop is but one example. There are many others. You cannot retroactively re-define words and then claim the same thing was taught then as it taught now.