1950 "The year of the assumption"

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Angainor said:
I had a feeling someone was going to say something like that.

The moral of the story: Ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...
We will be judged on what we know. So as a Catholic who should know his faith, we will be judged on what the Holy Spirit has revealed to the Holy Church.

On a side note my husband before attending RCIA said to me that when he heard me say this he started to think that since he has been married to me for ten years that he has no excuse to say that he didn’t know. And I guess that must of given him a little bit of a fright.😉
 
st_lucy said:
We will be judged on what we know. So as a Catholic who should know his faith, we will be judged on what the Holy Spirit has revealed to the Holy Church.

On a side note my husband before attending RCIA said to me that when he heard me say this he started to think that since he has been married to me for ten years that he has no excuse to say that he didn’t know. And I guess that must of given him a little bit of a fright.😉
Click to expand...
Fear not.

1 Corinthians 7:14
For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

But get him home quickly, anyway. :tiphat:
 
myfavoritmartin said:
If this were the case it should’ve been dogma form 1800+ years ago, this obviously is a man made tradition, and a mythical legend… unless you can prove otherwise?
Click to expand...
This is where you show your ignorance. Dogma is simply a formal definition of a Doctrine that has been held from the beginning. The reason Dogmas are officially defined is because of some significant confusion or significant rejection of the Doctrine that creeps in. In this case, this WAS Doctrine from the time it happened…at the time of Mary’s end to her earthly life and when she was assumed by God into Heaven.
Go to newadvent.org and look up what Dogma and Doctrine actually are.
 
Ilroy said:
This is where you show your ignorance. Dogma is simply a formal definition of a Doctrine that has been held from the beginning. The reason Dogmas are officially defined is because of some significant confusion or significant rejection of the Doctrine that creeps in. In this case, this WAS Doctrine from the time it happened…at the time of Mary’s end to her earthly life and when she was assumed by God into Heaven.
Go to newadvent.org and look up what Dogma and Doctrine actually are.
Click to expand...
Exactly! It is a definition of something that was already believed…👍
 
Ilroy said:
This is where you show your ignorance. Dogma is simply a formal definition of a Doctrine that has been held from the beginning. The reason Dogmas are officially defined is because of some significant confusion or significant rejection of the Doctrine that creeps in. In this case, this WAS Doctrine from the time it happened…at the time of Mary’s end to her earthly life and when she was assumed by God into Heaven.
Go to newadvent.org and look up what Dogma and Doctrine actually are.
Click to expand...
This is where I get stuck when studying Catholicism. How could a person be saved in the year 500 without subscribing to the beliefs of the assumption, the immaculate conception, or papal infallibility but, now, you are damned if you don’t believe in it because it was made dogma by the church 1300-1400 years later? Whether you call it doctrine or dogma doesn’t change that fact. I have come very close to joining the Catholic Church, but these issues have, I admit, been stumbling blocks. By the way, I don’t think it’s charitable to call someone “ignorant” especially if you have a good answer as you did. Just answer in love. Most of us are just trying to understand the Catholic faith by coming here.
 
here_i_stand said:
This is where I get stuck when studying Catholicism. How could a person be saved in the year 500 without subscribing to the beliefs of the assumption, the immaculate conception, or papal infallibility but, now, you are damned if you don’t believe in it because it was made dogma by the church 1300-1400 years later? Whether you call it doctrine or dogma doesn’t change that fact. I have come very close to joining the Catholic Church, but these issues have, I admit, been stumbling blocks. By the way, I don’t think it’s charitable to call someone “ignorant” especially if you have a good answer as you did. Just answer in love. Most of us are just trying to understand the Catholic faith by coming here.
Click to expand...
This is where I get stuck when studying Potestanism. How could a person be saved in the year 500 without subscribing to salvation by faith alone,but be damned if they don’t believe in it now because it was made dogma by the church 1000 years later
 
estesbob said:
This is where I get stuck when studying Potestanism. How could a person be saved in the year 500 without subscribing to salvation by faith alone,but be damned if they don’t believe in it now because it was made dogma by the church 1000 years later
Click to expand...
Faith alone is not a DOCTRINE!
 
myfavoritmartin said:
We are saved by CHRIST ALONE! Just like the theif on the cross, nothing we can do can make us any better than that…
bible.oremus.org/?ql=48850708
Click to expand...
Oh -so we are saved by faith alone but its not a doctrine?:confused:

Its also a belief that was not formulated unitl 1500 years after Christ died. So what happened to all those people who died prior to God revealing this truth 1500 years after his Sons death?

We can trace belief in the Assumption back to the earliest Church yet you claim it wasn’t a docrtine until 1950. Meanwhile you have core beliesfs that have no basis in Sripture nor were they taught by any Church until 1500 years after the death of Christ.

Pot>>Kettke>>Black
 
estesbob said:
We can trace belief in the Assumption back to the earliest Church yet you claim it wasn’t a docrtine until 1950. Meanwhile you have core beliesfs that have no basis in Sripture nor were they taught by any Church until 1500 years after the death of Christ.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me, I can find your own church fathers such as Chrysotom, whom believed in faith alone…

HERE YA GO…

“But after saying that ‘it was excluded,’ he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? ‘By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.’ See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the ‘law of faith?’ It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.” (Homilies on Romans, 7, v. 27)

“Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart without it.** For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith only**. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works” (Homilies on Second Corinthians, 2:8, vv. 10-11)

“They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone is blessed.” (Commentary on Galatians, 3, v. 8)

I’VE tons more but this should suffice…
So much for 1500 years later eh???
 
here_i_stand said:
This is where I get stuck when studying Catholicism. How could a person be saved in the year 500 without subscribing to the beliefs of the assumption, the immaculate conception, or papal infallibility but, now, you are damned if you don’t believe in it because it was made dogma by the church 1300-1400 years later? Whether you call it doctrine or dogma doesn’t change that fact. I have come very close to joining the Catholic Church, but these issues have, I admit, been stumbling blocks. By the way, I don’t think it’s charitable to call someone “ignorant” especially if you have a good answer as you did. Just answer in love. Most of us are just trying to understand the Catholic faith by coming here.
Click to expand...
Well, that is what I tried to point out to the poster. These things were Doctrine in the year 500 and so they HAD to be believed by the faithful. The reason they became Dogma is because there was some dispute or confusion as to the exact meaning. A Dogma is simply a formal defining of a Doctrine that already is and was. Declaring a Dogma does not mean something is being added that was not previously there. It means something that was previously there just needed to be explained in a more clear and formal manner.
See the articles on each at Newadvent.org for an in depth explanation.

As for saying ignorance, maybe it was a poor choice of word…In my previous post, the meaning of the word simply means uninformed or unknowledgeable of the particular issue. No harm was intended.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Are you kidding me, I can find your own church fathers such as Chrysotom, whom believed in faith alone…

HERE YA GO…

"But after saying that ‘it was excluded,’ he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? ‘By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.’ See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the ‘law of faith?’ It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only
Click to expand...
." (Homilies on Romans, 7, v. 27)

“Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart without it.** For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith only**. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works” (Homilies on Second Corinthians, 2:8, vv. 10-11)

“They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone is blessed.” (Commentary on Galatians, 3, v. 8)

I’VE tons more but this should suffice…
So much for 1500 years later eh???As always…out of context. You wanna quote St. John on this but you reject everything else he says that tells you you should be Catholic.

Was he a pope? No? Well then he is stating an errant opinion that does not align with the New Testament nor the teachings of the Church.

Tons more? A ton of emptiness is still empty.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Are you kidding me, I can find your own church fathers such as Chrysotom, whom believed in faith alone…

HERE YA GO…

“But after saying that ‘it was excluded,’ he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? ‘By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.’ See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the ‘law of faith?’ It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.” (Homilies on Romans, 7, v. 27)

“Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart without it.** For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith only**. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works” (Homilies on Second Corinthians, 2:8, vv. 10-11)

“They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone is blessed.” (Commentary on Galatians, 3, v. 8)

I’VE tons more but this should suffice…
So much for 1500 years later eh???
Click to expand...
Of course the only way one could believe this small handful of verses taught salvation by faith alone is if we accept your personal interperation of them AND reject preety much the rest of Scripture. Since this new improved interperation did not occur for 1500 years after Christs death I think Ill stick with the teachngs of the One True Church.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Are you kidding me, I can find your own church fathers such as Chrysotom, whom believed in faith alone…
Click to expand...
Funny you left out this:

" ‘He that believes in the Son has everlasting life.’ ‘Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,’ someone will say, 'in order to have everlasting life?’** By no means**! Listen to Christ declare this himself when he says, ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord! Lord!” shall enter into the kingdom of heaven’; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching?** For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation"** (Homilies on the Gospel of John 31:1 [circa A.D. 391]).

Did you really think you could take the preachings of “golden mouth” out of context and think anyone here would buy into it?
 
Church_Militant said:
As always…out of context. You wanna quote St. John on this but you reject everything else he says that tells you you should be Catholic.

Was he a pope? No? Well then he is stating an errant opinion that does not align with the New Testament nor the teachings of the Church.

Tons more? A ton of emptiness is still empty.
Click to expand...
Estes made the brash statement that my core beliefs started 1500 years after Christ…**YOUR **St John proves otherwise…I encourage you to read Chrysotom regarding salvation and justification…
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Estes made the **brash statement that my core beliefs started 1500 years after Christ…YOUR **St John proves otherwise…I encourage you to read Chrysotom regarding salvation and justification…
Click to expand...
Only when you cherry pick quotes. As I already posted John stated emphatically that one is NOT saved by faith alone.
 
estesbob said:
Funny you left out this:

" ‘He that believes in the Son has everlasting life.’ ‘Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,’ someone will say, 'in order to have everlasting life?’** By no means**! Listen to Christ declare this himself when he says, ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord! Lord!” shall enter into the kingdom of heaven’; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching?** For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation"** (Homilies on the Gospel of John 31:1 [circa A.D. 391]).

Did you really think you could take the preachings of “golden mouth” out of context and think anyone here would buy into it?
Click to expand...
Ahemmm…Clears throat…
How many chapters does the GOSPEL OF JOHN HAVE???😊

I’d like a link to this…😃
 
myfavoritmartin said:
And that is why there is no need for a basis in scripture for your beliefs?
Isn’t the magisterium a servant to the “word of God”?

That is what I am saying, I can find all kinds of fathers who spoke contrary to this…
And infallibility didn’t even have a unanimous consent.
Click to expand...
I was going to chime in with some serious fact, but I read a little more and find that you are really a joke. You dont know or care it seems one whit about history. If you have studied it it was only from a seriously biased teacher. Not hard to imagine you finding one of those. Perticularly where the early church is concerned. No fathers of all kinds did not speak contrary to this. and yes infallibility did have unanimous consent. even the eastern church bowed the knee. If you mean heratics did not bend the knee well that is obvious they are heratics. but the church taught and the fathers and doctors of the church defended both of these teachings from the very beginning. We still have the building where mary lived on the outside of it carved in greek is the phrase, The holy place of Mary. we see things like this all over in history. And the fathers defend her in writing tooth and nail. To deny this is to not have a working knowledge of the fathers or early church history. You would have to be very selective indeed in your reading to miss this teaching being defended.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Ahemmm…Clears throat…
How many chapters does the GOSPEL OF JOHN HAVE???😊

I’d like a link to this…😃
Click to expand...
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9210frs.asp

I suggest you read all the quotes here and then come back and tell us the Church fathers beleived in Salvation by Faith Alone.

Some other quotes here:

Gregory of Nyssa

“Paul, joining righteousness to faith and weaving them together, constructs of them the breastplates for the infantryman, armoring the soldier properly and safely on both sides. A soldier cannot be considered safely armored when either shield is disjoined from the other. Faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation; neither is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith” (Homilies on Ecclesiastes 8 [ca. A.D. 335- 394]).

Origen

“Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in him; and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the epistle bearing the name of James” (Commentaries on John 19:6 [A.D. 226-232]).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top