Brian Eickholt

Computer Geek, Love to play games and read books on my Pixel 9 Pro XL

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

That's a fair question.

But if apostolic succession is the reason we should trust an interpretation, what do we do with the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and others who also claim apostolic succession yet disagree with Rome on significant issues?

At that point, apostolic succession by itself doesn't settle the question. We still have to evaluate competing claims.

And that's where Acts 17:11 becomes interesting. The Bereans were praised for examining the Scriptures daily to test Paul's teaching. If the principle was simply "trust the successors of the apostles," why commend people for testing apostolic teaching against Scripture in the first place?

If the Bereans were right to test an apostle's teaching against Scripture, why would Christians today be wrong to test bishops, councils, pastors, or popes against Scripture?

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

The thief on the cross seems like a pretty obvious example. He trusted Christ, confessed Him publicly, and Jesus promised him paradise that very day (Luke 23:39-43).

If you want to call his confession and plea to Jesus "works," then the same argument would apply to every believer who ever repented, confessed Christ, or prayed for mercy. At that point, "works" has been defined so broadly that faith itself becomes a work.

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

Are you sure?

I was raised in the Catholic Church, baptized as an infant in the Lutheran Church (a baptism the Catholic Church recognizes as valid), and later received the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Catholic Church.

As I understand Catholic teaching, baptism leaves an indelible mark and I have never formally renounced the Catholic Church.

But whether you consider me Catholic or not doesn't really address the question I asked about purgatory and plenary indulgences.

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

@soupcanarchist Most of us don't hate Mary

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

I don't believe most Protestants hate Mary. Everyone I know honors her as the mother of Jesus and recognizes the unique role she played in God's plan.

Where the debate arises is over practices like praying to Mary. For example, the New York Times crossword recently used the clue "Worship, in a way" with the answer "PRAY TO." That's not proof that prayer always equals worship, but it does show why many people naturally associate prayer with acts directed toward God rather than toward saints.

The disagreement usually isn't about whether Mary deserves honor and respect. It's about where honor ends and devotional practices begin.

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

I don't believe most Protestants hate Mary. Everyone I know honors her as the mother of Jesus and recognizes the unique role she played in God's plan.

Where the debate arises is over practices like praying to Mary. For example, the New York Times crossword recently used the clue "Worship, in a way" with the answer "PRAY TO." That's not proof that prayer always equals worship, but it does show why many people naturally associate prayer with acts directed toward God rather than toward saints.

The disagreement usually isn't about whether Mary deserves honor and respect. It's about where honor ends and devotional practices begin.

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

@CatholicDrip___ El Grande Americano (both of them) threw their names into that hat Saturday night.

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

@CatholicDrip___

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

I think the analogy does a good job explaining why Catholics honor Mary, but Protestants honor and respect Mary too. We affirm that she was chosen by God, blessed among women, and the mother of our Lord.

What I don't see is how the analogy gets from honor and respect to specifically Catholic practices. Respecting my boss's mother makes perfect sense. But asking her to pass messages to him, wearing items devoted to her, making Marian consecrations, or saying "the Rosary will save your soul" seems like a different category entirely.

So my question is: if the analogy explains honoring Mary, how does it explain praying to Mary or the level of devotion many Catholics direct toward her?

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

A couple honest questions:

If purgatory is a purification process, how do prayers, rosaries, or indulgences shorten that process? Is God cleansing souls gradually, or is He choosing to release them earlier because of our prayers?

And how does that fit with Acts 10:15, where God says, "What God has made clean, do not call common"? If a believer dies in Christ and God has already cleansed them, in what sense are they still impure and in need of further purification?

I'm not asking sarcastically - I genuinely don't understand how those ideas fit together.

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

Respectfully, where did I attack Catholics or the Catholic Church?

I’ve tried to discuss specific claims about Fatima, private revelation, and Sola Scriptura. That isn’t hatred. I don’t hate Catholics-I grew up Catholic, my parents are Catholic.

Disagreeing with a doctrine or asking how a claim is supported is not anti-Catholic. I receive far more hostility from Catholics on here than I’ve given, but I still try to keep the conversation respectful.

If you don’t want to continue, that’s fine. But please don’t frame honest disagreement as hatred.

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

Before we go further, what do you mean by Sola Scriptura?

Do you mean "Scripture is the final infallible authority for testing doctrine," or do you mean "nothing can be true unless it's explicitly written in the Bible"?

Because those are very different claims, and I don't hold the second one.

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

Respectfully, saying "it's simple" doesn't answer the question.

When Protestants disagree, Catholics often ask, "Which interpretation is correct?" I asked the same question about differing Fatima experiences and the answer became, "God gave different revelations to different people."

I'm not objecting to that. I'm asking how you determine the correct interpretation of those revelations. That's a question, not a denial.

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

Can you explain the difference?

You said different people at Fatima received different revelations according to what God wanted them to receive. I'm not saying that's impossible.

I'm asking why that principle can apply to people's experiences at Fatima, but not to Christians who read the same Scripture and come away with different insights while seeking God sincerely. What makes one case acceptable and the other not?

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

That's an interesting argument because it sounds very similar to what Protestants are often told about reading Scripture: that God may reveal different things to different people according to where they are spiritually.

When Protestants say believers can receive different insights while reading the same Bible, Catholics often respond, "They can't all be right." Yet when Fatima witnesses report different experiences, the explanation becomes that God gave different revelations to different people.

If differing experiences can be complementary at Fatima, why can't differing insights from Scripture be treated the same way, provided they're tested against the rest of God's Word?

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

You're comparing a private revelation from 1917 to the central event of Christianity and then holding them to completely different standards.

We don't possess the original copies of any ancient document, including Josephus, Tacitus, the Church Fathers, or the New Testament. Historians work from manuscript traditions and evaluate the quality and proximity of the evidence.

The Resurrection is attested by multiple first-century sources, became the core proclamation of Christianity immediately, and is preserved in Scripture. Fatima is a private revelation that even Catholics are free to reject.

As for witnesses, the reports from Fatima aren't even uniform - some described different phenomena and some reported seeing nothing at all. So if differing testimony undermines the Resurrection, it doesn't exactly strengthen Fatima.

The fact that some Jews denied the Resurrection actually shows the claim existed from the beginning. And while many secular scholars reject inspiration, they still use the Gospels and Paul's letters as historical sources and generally agree that Jesus existed, was crucified, and that His followers sincerely believed He rose from the dead.

As for motives, every historical event can be assigned possible motives. If the apostles had motive to lie, then Fatima witnesses can also be examined for expectation, suggestion, social pressure, religious excitement, or optical effects. The question is evidence, not merely possible motives.

Fatima including atheists and non-Christians is one of the stronger arguments in its favor, but it still doesn't make Fatima equivalent to the Resurrection, nor does it prove Marian intercession.

And the apostolic succession point is a separate debate entirely. Many Protestant traditions, including Anglican and some Lutheran churches, claim apostolic succession through ordained clergy and the laying on of hands. But even if I granted your view of apostolic succession, that still wouldn't prove Fatima occurred or that Marian devotion follows from it.

The issue isn't whether Fatima is interesting. The issue is why a private revelation from 1917 should be treated as carrying the same authority as the apostolic testimony to Christ's Resurrection.

[Brian Eickholt @eick74]

No, because the Resurrection and Fatima stand on very different foundations. The Resurrection is recorded in multiple books of Scripture, written within the apostolic era by witnesses or close associates of witnesses, and forms the central claim of Christianity from the beginning. Fatima is a private revelation from 1917 that even the Catholic Church says Catholics are free to reject.

Even if I grant that something unusual happened at Fatima, the most it proves is that something unusual happened at Fatima. That's actually how I view many private revelations: God may choose to give a sign to a particular group of people at a particular time. But a sign given to thousands in Portugal in 1917 isn't automatically binding on Christians worldwide the way the Resurrection is. The Resurrection is part of the God-breathed revelation on which Christianity itself is built; Fatima is not.