My friend,
Just curious seeing you are a former Catholic. Which Sacrament was that you did not receive? You could be a married person or an ex-priest or you may never have been seriously ill.
If I understand your position correctly, you have never been a Catholic person so maybe that explain why you eventually left.
If it about what happened to Jesus’ followers, you can’t.
Wrong. The assumption either happened or it didn’t (no right or wrong in that). Whether it happened or not, the Scriptures don’t say, and because it cannot be found in the Scriptures, I will not believe it just because the “Church says so.” I have yet to hear a convincing argument or see irrefutable evidence that this occurred, and without that, I assert that this is a tradition of men and is not binding on the Christian conscience.
I was born with a bad heart, and when I had it fixed at age 11, I received the Sacrament for the Sick. I got engaged at age 30 to a widow with 3 children (the youngest was 10). She had been married in the Catholic Church, and all the kids had been baptized, but that was as far as their religious training went. We got a special dispensation from the Bishop, so we didn’t have to go through the 6 month pre-marriage classes (we had a 3 month engagement). During the engagement, I trained all 3 of our kids, and they received their first communion the same day we were married (I think the priest also had special approval from the Bishop to Confirm them, but I wouldn’t swear to that).
I’m curious how you came to this conclusion.
Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. I try to do what Jesus did with the Corban rule. What I mean by that is, I look at a given “tradition” and check to see if it agrees, disagrees, or doesn’t conflict with Scripture. If it agrees with Scripture, it is a good tradition to keep (such as laying on of hands). If it disagrees with Scripture (such as the immaculate conception), then I can reject it outright. If it doesn’t agree, disagree or contradict Scripture (such as the assumption), then I can believe it or not, however I choose. We know that not everything was written down, but remember, God is the author of Scripture, and He loves His people and wants us to know Him and serve Him correctly, so why would He omit something like the assumption of Mary IF it is something that He wants His people to believe?
So you know when Mary left this world? According to the Melito reference given earlier, it was only about 2 years after Jesus ascended back into heaven. What is your source for this bit of information? I would expect to find Mary’s assumption mentioned in Scripture if God wanted us to believe it! Bringing in Peter and Paul’s martyrdom is a red herring. Remember, the assumption has been dogmatically declared by the “infallible” magisterium to be a FACT, yet the only evidence offered to back up this claim is not convincing (unless, of course, you automatically believe everything the Church tells you without question), while we still have the freedom to believe or disbeleive that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome (I still have doubts about Peter’s being crucified upside down).
That’s right. Mary may or may not have been assumed after she died (or “left this world” if you prefer). However, when your Church DEMANDS that I believe this (and they originally had an anathema attached on it to anyone who didn’t believe it), why am I criticized for asking them to prove the dogma?
I think you’re a little confused…
It seems obvious that you are operating under a misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura is and is not. Even though this thread is not on Sola Scriptura, I will give a breif statement on it. Sola Scriptura does not deny the authority of the Church to teach, but it holds the teachers (and the Church itself) accountable to the Scriptures. It does not deny the use and practice of traditions, so long as they do not contradict Scriptures (and if someone is forced to believe something that is not confirmed by the Scripture, such as the assumption, then they are not bound to follow it). As I said, this is a breif statement on Sola Scriptura.
John 16:12-14 says, “I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you.” (DR emphasis mine). John 14:26 says, “But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.” (DR emphasis mine). 1 Cor 2:12-13 says, “Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, .” (DR emphasis mine). 1 John 4:1 says, “Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (DR emphasis mine). As a Christian, I have been baptized with the Holy Spirit. I do “try the spirits” to determine if they are from God or not, and I use the Scriptures as a guideline to do this (just as Jesus did with the Corban rule). I am, however, still human, and am not infallible. Like Paul, I will say, “Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.” (1 Cor 11:1 DR). If I do not follow Jesus Christ, then don’t follow me (and please, show me in God’s Scriptures where I’m missing Jesus).
Ok, but he was talking to the **Apostles **, not to humanity in general. Can you prove, from scripture, that the Apostles or anyone else with authority (there really wasn’t anyone else) that Christ meant the holy spirit would lead everyone individually to accuratly interpet the bible, or any other christian doctrine?
Who will the Spirit teach all truth, Cachonga?
Thanks for sharing.
If I may ask you this question – putting aside whether it happened or not, would it be result in a negative for your faith if you believe that Mary was assumed? Or would it enhance it?
The early Church should know better when Mary left the world. Truly I do not have any information and that’s my position as mentioned earlier – if the Assumption is not to be found in the Scripture.
This is certainly not how Catholic does it, uh? As I said, and which you already known, the source of information is not to be found in the Bible alone. A Catholic would see the Church as the Keeper and Guardian of all that had been transmitted to her by the Lord and the apostles. So I think perhaps it may be futile to bring any further with you the Magestrium and Sacred Tradition/traditions.
Nothing personal but the kind of statement below leads me to think that you were not a Catholic person in the first place; do not have Catholicism at heart, so to speak. It’s not meant to be a judgment though it may sound like one. I hope you know what I mean. Like I am a ‘Catholic person’ because I believe in it as the Church founded by Jesus – I will try to find the rationale why the Church says so; not trying to prove the Church wrong. After all she is the Church led by the Holy Spirit.
And how exactly is the Canon of the scripture that you read confirmed by scripture itself? Some of its books claim divine inspiration, sure. Much of the OT, though, consists of dry accounts of history, law, census information and the like. And much of the NT consists of Paul’s letters.
That’s funny the “Bible alone” now includes the teaching authority of the church only when it agrees with your interpretation of scripture and apostolic tradition and again only when it agrees with your interpretation. So the “Bible alone” is not longer the Bible alone, if it were the authoritative teaching and apostolic tradition should not hold any place with the scriptures since the scriptures are sufficient.
To whom was Jesus speaking with in both passages? He was speaking with the apostles which all the more demonstrates the Church’s authority to preach and interpret. You do not descend from apostolic succession.
I would suggest that Jesus never spoke to “humanity in general”, but that’s another topic. However, was the Holy Spirit ONLY given to the Apostles? Didn’t Peter (in Acts 2:38) tell the people that they would “receive gift of the Holy Spirit”? Weren’t the first deacons filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3)? What about the Samaritans (Acts 8:15-17), or Cornelius and his household (Acts 10)? Should I go on? I think it’s obvious that the Holy Spirit was given by God to All of HIS people (not the whole world). We seem to have strayed from the topic (assumption of Mary). I would say that it is fair to say that there is no Scriptural proof for the assumption, that this dogma is based entirely on what the Church calls “Sacred Tradition”, and, while I admit it may have happened, I see no reason to make it a requirement of faith.
The fact that this (and similar) forum exists proves that the gospel has been watered down and people are not being taught as they should. Don’t take my word for it, search the forum and see how many different views you get from people who claim to be Catholic.
As stated above, we have strayed from the topic. No doubt I will be criticized for this, but I will not answer this question because (1) it is not on topic and (2) the answer requires a lot of backup and gets into other areas (besides Sola Scriptura), none of which are related to the current topic.
Things may have changed over the years, but at the time the 6 month pre-marriage classes were required of everyone who wanted to get married in the Church. It may have only been a local requirement, but regardless, we got a special dispensation from the Bishop, so we didn’t have to go through it.
Personally, I place the assumption in the same category as Peter being crucified upside down. It could have happened, but I have my doubts. Whether it did or not does not affect my relationship with my saviour, Jesus Christ.
As I pointed out earlier, the reference given from Melito of Sardis indicates that Mary left this world about two years after Jesus ascended to heaven. Was the entire corpus of the New Testament complete by that time? And why, if it happened that soon after Jesus ascended to heaven, do we not have any account from anyone prior to the middle/late 2nd century? On the other hand, maybe Melito was completely wrong, and the assumption never happened.
Seems odd that textual variants have crept into the Scriptures over time (and we know of these), but somehow the “oral tradition” has remained uncorrupted. Why wouldn’t the Holy Spirit protect the written word from error in the same way as the oral word?
I worded it that way because I no longer belong to the Church, but when I was Catholic, I was a committed Catholic.
Again, this thread is on the assumption of Mary, not Sola Scriptura.
We have strayed from the topic (assumption of Mary), so I will not comment on Sola Scriptura except as it relates to the topic (and I have already done that). I will confess that I made a mistake earlier. I have said that this was dogmatically declared in the middle of the 19th century. I was confusing the assumption with the immaculate conception. The immaculate conception was dogmatically declared in the middle of the 19th century, and the assumption was dogmatically declared in the middle of the 20th century.
There’s a big difference between speaking out on a hillside somewhere before 5,000 men and speaking in an inner room to Eleven, agreed?
But not to the same degree, Cachonga, and we would not say that the Spirit gives the same gifts to everyone (since scripture specifically states the opposite). Thus, we can conclude that the Spirit leads and guides all believers to varying degrees, but the Apostles and their successors have the special charism of infallibility.
I would agree with you…except that an infallible Church which speaks with the authority given to it by Jesus Christ Himself has said otherwise.
You’re half right. The gospel has not been watered down BUT people are not being taught as they should.
Cachonga, you typed a massive answer in this post and refused to give a brief explanation of your understanding of the Spirit’s role? Who are you trying to kid with this dodge?
Personally I think that is good start. At least it does not jeopardize your faith. Catholics have a whole theology on Assumption though.
Catholic regards the book De Transitu Virginis, is falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis. So we cannot speculate when she left the earth with any certainty.
Not with Catholicsim as you should know very well – there is no changes in Scriptures. No messages have ever changed. You might want to revise your thought on that if you want to use it to contradict this topic.
Committed but without faith, I suppose?
There is also a big difference between hearing and understanding. Agreed?
I agree that gifts vary, as does the levels of faith of the beleivers (as well as other “church-goers”). But I keep hearing about the “infallibility” of the Church or the pope, and now the Apostles. I don’t recall seeing the doctrine of infallibility in Scripture. If this were the topic of the thread, I would ask where is this found. Instead, I’ll just ask “How does this apply to the assumption?”
If you are going to believe something simply because “the Church says so”, then it seems obvious that your mind is made up and you don’t want to be bothered by the facts (or even consider other information or opinions). Since infallibility is not the topic, I will not comment on this further.
The gospel has been watered down, by Catholics as well as non-Catholics (you can deny the Catholic Church has done this, but it is true).
Never the less, it is off topic, and involves more background than just Sola Scriptura.
Of course they do. And it developed over time. However, it cannot be shown to have been believed (much less taught) by any of the Apostles. On what Scriptural basis should I (or anyone) beleive it?
So even the earliest references to the assumption are from apochryphal works. And the Church bases a de fide dogma on this kind of foundation? I would like someone to tell me exactly what Scriptures the Church uses to “prove” this dogma (I moved a couple weeks ago, and my copy of the CCC (yes, I have a current copy of the CCC) is somewhere in a box in storage, otherwise I would look it up myself). If no Scripture is given, then it’s based solely on tradition, and if the earliest part of the tradition goes back to apochryphal sources, what does that say about the tradition?
Perhaps you’re not familiar with textual variants. Briefly, you could have 2 copies of a manuscript that are not completely identical (the athiest use this to cause doubt in the Bible, but they don’t fully explain the variants, and that is not the topic here, but I do encourage you to look into it). The original autographs were inerrant, however, the copies are not (and if you think Catholic Bibles are immune to textual variants, you really need to look into this more closely). I will add quickly that there is no generally accepted Christian doctrine that is dependent upon a textual variant (in other words, we don’t have some manuscripts that define the Trinity, and others that define something else). The point is, if the text can get messed up, and we know from experience that verbal message can get messed up, how can we trust some unwritten, undocumented “oral” tradition that is (supposedly) nearly 2,000 years old?
You presume an awful lot. However, my faith as a Catholic is not the topic.
Why do you ask this - for Scriptural basis again?
No Scriptures please and that has been explained to you.
Alright, I admit I am not an expert on ancient manuscript. What I am pretty sure the Scripture that we have today is not changed substantially where the thrust of the message is being altered or there are additions to it. Why do you think as if this is being so? There were scribal mistakes and footnotes appeared in the copying but nevertheless no message has been changed. Do you believe in this?
I apologize if that brings your reputation into contention. My personal opinion for one who left the faith is that one was not a Catholic person in the first place and did not have the faith believing her as the Church founded by Jesus Christ. There is no different with the other churches either. If one can find fault with the Catholic Church what makes him does not with the others?
Sure.
Simple. An infallible Church has defined the dogma of the Assumption. End of story.
My mind is made up siince “the Church says so” but that doesn’t mean I can’t consider your “facts” or “information” or “opinions” in order to help you understand why they are in error. But no, there is no possibility of the Church being wrong about this.
If you feel strongly enought about this, feel free to pick an example and start a thread to explore it with us.
You never have to be without access to the Catechism again; just bookmark the following:
If it’s not in Scripture, and you can’t show where it was taught by any of the Apostles, why should anyone HAVE TO believe it?
The earliest documentation of this “tradition” comes from apochryphal works (unless you either deny your own sources or have earlier sources that are not apochryphal).
My point here was that variants have crept into the text over the years, and these are known and documented. Similar errors could have crept into any oral tradition, but we have no way to test if this occurred, or to be sure it is still accurate (short of doing what Jesus did, compare the tradition against Scripture). Consider this - God inspired men to write the Scriptures. God is the author of Scripture. Is what is in Scripture important? If something is not in Scripture (like the assumption), why didn’t God include it?
I would say I was very faithful as a Catholic. I had at least a dozen rosaries (all blessed), I was an alter boy (this was back when mass was in Latin), I was careful to observe what I had been taught, and to consider things carefully, spending a lot of time meditating on what I was taught (especially since before the end of my junior year of high school). I even attended mass 6 days a week.
Many thanks for the link! I have it bookmarked and am using it. (BTW - I hope you like having your own “response post”).
And the Church is “infallible” because she says so. She, of course, quotes Scripture to back up this claim, but she also defines and interprets the Scriptures she quotes to verify everything she says (the same goes for “sacred tradition”). So tell me, how is your decision to believe the Church any more “infallible” than my decision to look to the Scriptures?
I have done this before, and have received a wide variety of answers, but nothing convinceing. I also have 2 brothers (and their wives) who are constantly trying to bring me back to Rome. Their arguments haven’t been very convincing (they primarily rely on “teaching” CD’s from RC apologists, especially those who left Protestant Churches (some were Pastors) and joined the “Church”. I have listened to these, and after careful study, have found them to be very superficial (sounds good on the surface, but falls apart very easily when examined carefully)). If I ever decide to post a question on this topic, I will let you know!