Assumption of mary

[Good_Fella]

Where did the Blessed Mother die? I was in Jerusalem last November and went to the Church of the Dormition of Mary. Is this the correct place?

We aren’t exactly sure. St. Bridget of Sweden says Jerusalem, while Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich says Ephesus, where Mary lived with John, according to the private revelations they claimed to have received from the Blessed Virgin herself. I like to think that our Blessed Lady was buried in her homeland. So, I’ll go with St. Bridget.

One thing is certain, if Mary wasn’t assumed body and soul into heaven, we’d know where she was buried. The Christians of the infant Church were very devoted to Our Lady, her being the mother of the Lord, so they surely would have preserved her remains and kept them in a marked location in veneration of her.

:heaven:

 

[irishcolleen45]

We aren’t exactly sure. St. Bridget of Sweden says Jerusalem, while Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich says Ephesus, where Mary lived with John, according to the private revelations they claimed to have received from the Blessed Virgin herself. I like to think that our Blessed Lady was buried in her homeland. So, I’ll go with St. Bridget.

One thing is certain, if Mary wasn’t assumed body and soul into heaven, we’d know where she was buried. The Christians of the infant Church were very devoted to Our Lady, her being the mother of the Lord, so they surely would have preserved her remains and kept them in a marked location in veneration of her.

:heaven:

Thank you.

 

[jlhargus]

If I don’t believe in the assumption, will I not go to heaven?

JWs and others don’t believe in the Trinity, will they go to hell? I would say no as long as they are living the gospel the best they can with the knowledge of the gospel they have. Now if one is a Catholic knowing and understanding the faith and simply reject the Trinity they are in grave danger.

 

[jcrichton]

Thank you. I prefer the Church Fathers over modern writers. They lived closer to the time period.

Hi!

…yeah, it amazes me how “scholars” formulate thesis based on personal understanding and bias and claim to “know” how things took place thousands of years ago… while, simultaneously, dismissing what has been believed and observed almost from the outset of the event.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

JWs and others don’t believe in the Trinity, will they go to hell? I would say no as long as they are living the gospel the best they can with the knowledge of the gospel they have. Now if one is a Catholic knowing and understanding the faith and simply reject the Trinity they are in grave danger.

Hi, J!

…so in spite of the fact that Jesus states that blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is a sin that is not forgiven man on this life nor on the next, you believe that those who reject the Holy Spirit will still end up in Heaven?:

31 And so I tell you, every one of men’s sins and blasphemies will be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And anyone who says a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but let anyone speak against the Holy Spirit and he will not be forgiven either in this world or in the next.

(St. Matthew 12:31-32)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JohnR77]

Hi, Della!

…only one exception–actually all deserted Jesus; the prophecy is clear: 'I will strike the Shepherd and the sheep will scatter." (Mat. 26:31) and “When you’ve returned to Me gather the others…” (Lu. 22:31).

Though it is true that John, along with Peter, did return (Jn. 18:15-16) to Jesus’s side (presence, not physically next to Him), being familiar to the high priest allowed him a certain sense of protection (the people would have not suspected John of being Jesus’ Disciple).

Maran atha!

Angel

Sorry, Angel.
We may have to agree to disagree on this one.
I believe Della got this one right.

Those verses may be “clear” in your mind, but words are always in context. There is NO one infallible way to interpret those words.

Scripture says they “all” dispersed, but the word “all” can allow for exceptions.
See
defendingthebride.com/ma2/all.html

John, the beloved disciple, was at Jesus’s side, “physically next” to Him at the cross.

John 19:26
“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”

So, even if John did desert Jesus, and then later returned – something we cannot be sure of, and I would argue against John having deserted Jesus – We do know that John was faithfully next to Jesus at the cross. I would argue that it was because John was strengthened by his walk with Mary.

Protestant objection to the Assumption, his two main points:

The New Testament was written over a period of approximately sixty-five years and not so much as one verse says anything about the bodily assumption of Mary. If this event actually occurred, then at least one of the New Testament writers should have told us.

I would have like the New Testament writes to have told us which Books belong in the New Testament.
I would also have liked them to have mentioned the word “Trinity.”

The fact that they did not do these things proves nothing.

What Catholicism has actually done in perpetuating this man made dogma of the Assumption, is to give a status to Mary that is not to be given to anyone but the Lord Jesus. Catholics place undo emphasis on Mary and give her glories reserve only for God. Any undo exaltation of Mary is repulsive to a true Bible believing Christian who desires to see the Lord Jesus Christ alone exalted.

Mary’s life, her heart, her Assumption, was all the work of Jesus Christ.
This was all done by her cooperation of course.
By denying this and saying it never happened, Protestants insult Jesus – as well as Mary. They deny the glory that God is due.

Thanks everyone for your posts.
Good passages Dmar.

 

[Good_Fella]

Sorry, Angel.
We may have to agree to disagree on this one.
I believe Della got this one right.

Those verses may be “clear” in your mind, but words are always in context. There is NO one infallible way to interpret those words.

Scripture says they “all” dispersed, but the word “all” can allow for exceptions.
See
defendingthebride.com/ma2/all.html

John, the beloved disciple, was at Jesus’s side, “physically next” to Him at the cross.

John 19:26
“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”

So, even if John did desert Jesus, and then later returned – something we cannot be sure of, and I would argue against John having deserted Jesus – We do know that John was faithfully next to Jesus at the cross. I would argue that it was because John was strengthened by his walk with Mary.

All the Apostles, including John, abandoned Jesus when he was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane by Judas’ betrayal. But by a special grace, and perhaps through Mary’s added encouragement, John was drawn to the cross. This was a second conversion experience for him, just as it was for Peter when he wept bitterly for having denied Jesus three times.

***Then all the disciples deserted him and fled. - Matthew 26, 56 ***

:heaven:

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jcrichton:

Hi, J!

…so in spite of the fact that Jesus states that blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is a sin that is not forgiven man on this life nor on the next, you believe that those who reject the Holy Spirit will still end up in Heaven?:

There is a big difference between rejecting a belief and blaspheming.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Good Fella:

All the Apostles, including John, abandoned Jesus when he was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane by Judas’ betrayal. But by a special grace, and perhaps through Mary’s added encouragement, John was drawn to the cross. This was a second conversion experience for him, just as it was for Peter when he wept bitterly for having denied Jesus three times.

I agree!

According to the visionary Mother Mary Agreda, John visited the Virgin Mary right after the arrest of Jesus and made profuse apologies to her for abandoning her Son. He then stayed with her for the remainder of the Passion.

 

[jcrichton]

Sorry, Angel.
We may have to agree to disagree on this one.
I believe Della got this one right.

Those verses may be “clear” in your mind, but words are always in context. There is NO one infallible way to interpret those words.

Scripture says they “all” dispersed, but the word “all” can allow for exceptions.
See
defendingthebride.com/ma2/all.html

John, the beloved disciple, was at Jesus’s side, “physically next” to Him at the cross.

John 19:26
“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”

So, even if John did desert Jesus, and then later returned – something we cannot be sure of, and I would argue against John having deserted Jesus – We do know that John was faithfully next to Jesus at the cross. I would argue that it was because John was strengthened by his walk with Mary.

Hi, John!

…my philosophy is: “I respect everyone’s opinion–but only mine is the one that counts.” :slapfight::slapfight::slapfight:

Yet, there are things that are not left up to opinions… it is Jesus Christ Himself that makes the statement calling into attention the prophecy about the Shepherd.

We may get caught up in the opinion game but prophecy is prophecy. It is not ‘I will strike the Shepherd and some will scatter;’ rather, it is “all will scatter:”

32 Listen; the time will come – in fact it has come already – when you will be scattered, **each going his own way **

and leaving me alone. And yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. (St. John 16:32)
Yes, we can dance around the issue and we may rationalize as the “correct” interpretation of an event… but no, facts cannot be interpreted as fluid just because of a “feeling” or “opinion” held as valid.

I’m not disputing that John was at the foot of the Cross… this is a post event; again, this is another issue of disputation… some attribute John with being the only Disciple that did not leave the Lord… which clearly contradicts Scriptures; others go to the extent of crediting John for having more valor than the rest of the Disciples–another questionable assumption since John’s familiarity with the high priest was the reason why he was able to gain access and even get near Jesus; then, as now, who you know opens doors. A fact clearly attested to by John’s intercession for Cephas.

How the ladies and John were granted access to Jesus, at the foot of the Cross, is up for grabs since much of it is left to interpretation of the event:

• Was it the custom to allow female relatives to witness the death of their loved ones in an up close and personal sort of way?
• Did John’s familiarity with the high priest (most likely due to some business relations) granted him special access and allowed him to bring in the ladies as he previously spoke for Cephas?
• Was it customary to allow a small group of people to claim the body of those being crucified?
• Were the guards bribed by John?..

Clearly, that part of the event is open to circumspection–the unfolding of the prophecy is not!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

There is a big difference between rejecting a belief and blaspheming.

Hi!

…can we breakdown this tenet?

…are you intimating that Salvation is Granted without the intercession of the Holy Spirit and that those who reject the Holy Spirit are not blaspheming because they are not addressing the Holy Spirit but simply rejecting His Existence or Divinity?

…and are you intimating that the Holy Spirit only Calls on already converted Christians?

Is rejection of the Holy Spirit not a sin of Omission?

Is ignorance of God the same as rejection of God?

Thank you for your assistance.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JohnR77]

Yet, there are things that are not left up to opinions… it is “all will scatter:”

… but no, facts cannot be interpreted as fluid just because of a “feeling” or “opinion” held as valid.

I’m not disputing that John was at the foot of the Cross
… which clearly contradicts Scriptures; others go to the extent of crediting John for having more valor than the rest of the Disciples–

Hi Angel,

Before I state our disagreements, let me say that we both agree that it was the Apostle John who was at the cross on Calvary.
See St. Pope John Paul II’s affirmation of that.
defendingthebride.com/mc/notes/john.html

The Apostle and author of the fourth Gospel, John in his humility did not name himself, but refers to himself as the disciple. See John 18:15, 19:26; 20:2; 21:7. Bultman, a non-Catholic, argues these are not references to John, but the stronger argument is that they do.

Pope Benedict XVI also wrote about this in one of his books. John does not brag about himself, but he does brag about how great God is in that although John was a sinner, God loved him.

**John 19:26
**“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”
We also both agree that Jesus’ prophesy is true.

**John 16:32
**“The hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, every man to his home, and will leave me alone; yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me.”

Our disagreement is whether your private interpretation on how this verse is fulfilled is correct or not. You claim your private interpretation is obvious fact, while I claim it might be true, but the position that John did not desert Jesus is also possible. Further, Della’s claim that John did not desert Jesus is the stronger argument based on what the Church has declared so far.

This bible passage comes from within the context of Catholic Church teaching and the Magisterium has not infallibly defined how this verse is fulfilled. One must use humility and wisdom to distinguish between one’s private interpretation and the Church’s infallible decrees.

Jesus and the Gospel writers were alluding to the Old Testament prophesy in Zechariah :

**Mark 14:27
**“And Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’”

**Matthew 26:31
**“Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’”
Zec. 13:7

**Matthew 26:56-58
“But all this has taken place, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples forsook him and fled. … 58But **Peter followed him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest…”

**Zechariah 13:7
**“Awake, O sword, against my shepherd,
against the man who stands next to me,” says the Lord of hosts.
“Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered

Continued …
.

 

[JohnR77]

Your argument seems to be that this passage below is fulfilled exactly as You understand it, and that since Jesus said it, it must be more true than if He had not.

**John 16:32
**“The hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, every man to his home, and will leave me alone; yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me.”
Protestants have the problem of putting Jesus words in red. Catholics on the other hand view all of sacred scripture as infallibly true – when the teaching is correctly understood - because it is all the Word of God.

Words like “everyone,” “every man,” or “all” can be understood in an absolute sense, but with the Bible this is clearly not always the case. See

Romans 3:23
“since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
defendingthebride.com/ma2/all.html

Similarly the word “alone” may or may not be used here in an absolute sense. You trust your private interpretation. I trust the teachings of the Catholic Church who has not ruled on this matter. Also see below how Jesus’ own words are not to be understood in an absolute sense.

**Matthew 27:46
“Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me ?’ ”
NAB
**defendingthebride.com/je/forsaken.html
http://www.defendingthebride.com/je/forsaken.html

Matthew 23: 9
“And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.”
defendingthebride.com/ch/call.html
http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/call.html

Putting our trust into the “obvious meaning” of the text has its problems. See

**Matthew 12:40

**“For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
defendingthebride.com/mc/sa/three.html

Looking at what the Bible says when all the other disciples did flee seems to strongly suggest that John did not.

John 18:3-16
** “So Judas, procuring a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” 5 They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who …
12 So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus and bound him. 13 First they led him to Annas; for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. 14 It was Caiaphas who had given counsel to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
15 Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple.**As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus, 16 while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.””

After the fleeing, John is still there with Jesus, and then in the next chapter we still find John with Jesus.

**John 19:26
**“When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”

When the interpretation can go either way, I purposely choose not to accuse, and especially not to accuse Saint John who obviously had a high place as declared by Jesus to be given the singular honor of caring for Jesus’ mother, BVM.

You on the other hand, based on your private interpretation – of the “obvious meaning” of the text – do choose to accuse St. John.

What does the Church say on this ?
She has not ruled infallibly on this issue, but the evidence so far rules in Della’s favor against you.

 

[JohnR77]

.
A private revelation has been referenced to your favor.

María de Ágreda

britannica.com/biography/Maria-de-Agreda#ref168418
Her best-known work is The Mystical City of God (1670), a life of the Virgin Mary ostensibly based on divine revelations granted to María. … Despite the book’s evident historical, geographic, and chronological errors, scholars value it as an ascetic and mystical treatise.

Also,
María de Ágreda has the title of Venerable. She has not been Beatified or Canonized a Saint. However, even if she was canonized a Saint, which has not happened, that does not authenticate her private revelations. FOUR volumes. Although her book was originally put on the Index of Forbidden books, probably do to a mistake, it later did receive an imprimatur, but even that designation is sometimes reversed.

**John 13:23
**“One of his disciples, the one whom Jesus loved, was reclining at Jesus’ side.”

**Pope Francis :**

September 15, 2016
Today’s Gospel, the Jesuit Pope [Francis] stressed, brings us to Calvary, when all the Lord’s disciples fled, except for St. John and a few women.

Same event, affirmed by another CATHOLIC author, webmaster.

intothedeepblog.net/2016_09_01_archive.html
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
According to Vatican Radio, the Pontiff [Pope Francis] gave this advice during his daily morning Mass, on the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, at Casa Santa Marta, as he stressed that in a “world that suffers the crisis of a great orphanhood,” we have a Mother that accompanies and defends us.
Today’s Gospel, the Jesuit Pope stressed, brings us to Calvary, when all the Lord’s disciples fled, except for St. John and a few women.


Fr Paul Churchill’s talk at the 50th Eucharistic Congress in Dublin 2012.
**When his disciples fled after his arrest these women remained with Mary and St. John and persevered through the pain of the Cross in solidarity with Jesus.

Pope Benedict XVI :**


date : 04/19/2009,
The reflection before the Regina Caeli was focused on the theme of the Divine Mercy. Benedict XVI recalled that …
“The communion of the first Christians,” the pope explained, “had the risen Christ as its true center and foundation. The Gospel says, in fact, that at the moment of the passion, when the divine Teacher was arrested and condemned to death, **the disciples fled. Only Mary and the women, together with the apostle John, stayed together and followed him all the way to Calvary.**Once he had risen, Jesus gave his followers a new unity, stronger than the kind they had before, invincible, because it was founded not on human resources, but on the divine mercy, which made them feel they were all loved and forgiven by him. It is therefore the merciful love of God that firmly unites the Church, today as yesterday, and makes humanity a single family; the divine love, which through Jesus crucified and risen forgives our sins and renews us from within.”

.http://www.defendingthebride.com/mc/notes/john.html

 

[JohnR77]

**.

**** St. John Chrysostom, Early Father of the Church, Doctor of the Church
**(Chrysostomos, “golden-mouthed” so called on account of his eloquence).
Chrysostom : Go to the link for Chapter 18, and scroll down to **Lectio 5 ** for verse John 18:15 and scroll down to comments by CHRYS. to read as follows ] “He omits his own name out of humility: though he is relating an act of great virtue, how that he followed when the rest fled. He puts Peter before himself, and then mentions himself, in order to show that he was inside the hall, and therefore related what took place there with more certainty than the other Evangelists could. That disciple was known to the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. This he mentions not as a boast, but in order to diminish his own merit, in having been the only one who entered with Jesus. It is accounting for the act in another way, than merely by greatness of mind. Peter’s love took him as far as the palace, but his fear prevented him entering in: But Peter stood at the door without.”
Homilies on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)> Homily 83 “For the same reason, for here too he mentions a great good deed, that **when all had started away, he followed. **Therefore he conceals himself, and puts Peter before him…”
So, in conclusion, you have your private interpretation of Jesus’ words and a private revelation to your defense.

It looks like Della maybe has two Popes with Pope Benedict XVI’s citation being the stronger of the two, as well as an early Church Father, a Doctor of the Church, and a Saint coming down explicitly affirming that she is right.

I realize these forum debate seem to go on forever, but I do not have the time to go further into this discussion, but out of prudence of not wanting to falsely accuse, and going with what the Church has said so far, I am going with Della on this one. John did not abandon Jesus. Maybe by force John was excluded from the trail with Pilate, but John – not as you put it “John for having more valor than the rest” but rather God’s grace working within him – stayed true to Jesus as well as did Mary at the cross. Mary is called a true disciple by St. Pope John Paul II
defendingthebride.com/mc/notes/john.html
http://www.defendingthebride.com/mc/notes/john.html
Thanks for reading,
John
.

 

[Good_Fella]

**.

**** St. John Chrysostom**, Early Father of the Church, Doctor of the Church
(Chrysostomos, “golden-mouthed” so called on account of his eloquence).
Chrysostom : Go to the link for Chapter 18, and scroll down to **Lectio 5 ** for verse John 18:15 and scroll down to comments by CHRYS. to read as follows ] “He omits his own name out of humility: though he is relating an act of great virtue, how that he followed when the rest fled. He puts Peter before himself, and then mentions himself, in order to show that he was inside the hall, and therefore related what took place there with more certainty than the other Evangelists could. That disciple was known to the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. This he mentions not as a boast, but in order to diminish his own merit, in having been the only one who entered with Jesus. It is accounting for the act in another way, than merely by greatness of mind. Peter’s love took him as far as the palace, but his fear prevented him entering in: But Peter stood at the door without.”
Homilies on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)> Homily 83 “For the same reason, for here too he mentions a great good deed, that **when all had started away, he followed. **Therefore he conceals himself, and puts Peter before him…”
So, in conclusion, you have your private interpretation of Jesus’ words and a private revelation to your defense.

It looks like Della maybe has two Popes with Pope Benedict XVI’s citation being the stronger of the two, as well as an early Church Father, a Doctor of the Church, and a Saint coming down explicitly affirming that she is right.

I realize these forum debate seem to go on forever, but I do not have the time to go further into this discussion, but out of prudence of not wanting to falsely accuse, and going with what the Church has said so far, I am going with Della on this one. John did not abandon Jesus. Maybe by force John was excluded from the trail with Pilate, but John – not as you put it “John for having more valor than the rest” but rather God’s grace working within him – stayed true to Jesus as well as did Mary at the cross. Mary is called a true disciple by St. Pope John Paul II
defendingthebride.com/mc/notes/john.html
http://www.defendingthebride.com/mc/notes/john.html
Thanks for reading,
John
.

Sorry, John, but Matthew 26:56 is clear: "Then all the disciples forsook him and fled." The word for “all” (pantes, a derivative of pas) in this instance means each (every) disciple who was with Jesus at the time of his arrest. The reason why they all fled was because they feared they would be arrested, too. Indeed, we read in the Gospel of John that this other “disciple” who knew the high priest went into the courtyard with Jesus. This indicates that the other disciple was not known to be a close disciple of Jesus or else he would have put himself in the same danger as all the other close disciples who forsook Jesus and fled from the Garden of Gethsemane. If this other disciple is in fact John, and he is so confident that he isn’t in any danger, he wouldn’t have fled with all the others but stay with Jesus. It appears that Peter was the only apostle who was brave enough to go to the courtyard with the other disciple, though his courage soon left him, just as it had soon after he stepped out of his boat to meet Jesus walking on the water. True, John does occasionally refer to himself in the third person as “the disciple” in his gospel, but with the qualification “whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23;19:26;21:20). Only in 19:35 does John refer to himself by name, and that’s to identify himself as the author of the gospel. I see no reason why John would break from his typical pattern of referring to himself in 18:15. This other disciple could very well belong to the group of the 72 disciples that Jesus had sent out (Luke 10:1-24). These disciples were not as close to Jesus as the Twelve who remained constantly with him for three years and would easily be identified as disciples of his. In my humble opinion, I think this is the case. Now, I see you appeal to St. John Chrysostom as some type of infallible exegete. But in his Homily on the Gospel of John, 21, he says that Jesus rebuked his mother Mary at Cana, and even suggests that she might have sought glory for herself. Do you agree with this opinion of his?

:heaven:

 

[jcrichton]

**.

**** St. John Chrysostom**, Early Father of the Church, Doctor of the Church
(Chrysostomos, “golden-mouthed” so called on account of his eloquence).
Chrysostom : Go to the link for Chapter 18, and scroll down to **Lectio 5 ** for verse John 18:15 and scroll down to comments by CHRYS. to read as follows ] “He omits his own name out of humility: though he is relating an act of great virtue, how that he followed when the rest fled. He puts Peter before himself, and then mentions himself, in order to show that he was inside the hall, and therefore related what took place there with more certainty than the other Evangelists could. That disciple was known to the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. This he mentions not as a boast, but in order to diminish his own merit, in having been the only one who entered with Jesus. It is accounting for the act in another way, than merely by greatness of mind. Peter’s love took him as far as the palace, but his fear prevented him entering in: But Peter stood at the door without.”
Homilies on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)> Homily 83 “For the same reason, for here too he mentions a great good deed, that **when all had started away, he followed. **Therefore he conceals himself, and puts Peter before him…”
So, in conclusion, you have your private interpretation of Jesus’ words and a private revelation to your defense.

It looks like Della maybe has two Popes with Pope Benedict XVI’s citation being the stronger of the two, as well as an early Church Father, a Doctor of the Church, and a Saint coming down explicitly affirming that she is right.

I realize these forum debate seem to go on forever, but I do not have the time to go further into this discussion, but out of prudence of not wanting to falsely accuse, and going with what the Church has said so far, I am going with Della on this one. John did not abandon Jesus. Maybe by force John was excluded from the trail with Pilate, but John – not as you put it “John for having more valor than the rest” but rather God’s grace working within him – stayed true to Jesus as well as did Mary at the cross. Mary is called a true disciple by St. Pope John Paul II
defendingthebride.com/mc/notes/john.html
http://www.defendingthebride.com/mc/notes/john.html
Thanks for reading,
John
.

Hi, John!

…goodwill, seems to always be a “trump” card.

…yet, it is not about my interpretation against any others’… it is about Scriptures… either the prophecy is wrong (not all fled) or the prophecy is correct (all fled).

I am not placing myself in above/equal grounds to any other… I am, at best, pedestrian at Faith, intelligence, and fervor…

But just as I cannot dilute Cephas’ importance in the Church, I cannot enhance anyone else’s out of “feeling” or “special personal revelation.”

I agree with the statements about St. John’s humility… and I agree with Scriptures’ demonstration that he was there at the foot of the Cross.

…and, while Christ had His reasons for doing what He did (choosing Cephas as the rock; choosing St. John as the guardian of His mother), this does not necessitates that I counter Scriptures with my supposition, even when others of high caliber seem to jump to the chance… I take Jesus Word, not the interpretation of the text, as the grounds for my understanding.

So, just because Jesus paid Cephas’ taxes (St. Matthew 17:27), and He Gave him the Keys to the Kingdom (St. Matthew 16:18-19), and He made him the rally point of the Faith (St. Luke 22:32), I cannot claim that all left Jesus but St. Peter… ‘because he followed Jesus, even if at a distance.’ I must agree with the prophecy: “I shall strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will scatter.”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Della]

I can’t believe that an offhand remark by me started all this argument about John deserting Jesus. Of course he did–at first. That’s obvious from the text. But, unlike the others, he returned, since he is recorded as standing with Mary at the foot of the cross. I didn’t state that he deserted Jesus merely because-------well, actually, it’s been so long now I don’t remember why I even mentioned it. Honestly, do we have to debate everything ad nauseam? Besides derailing the poor OP"s thread?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I said:

There is a big difference between rejecting a belief and blaspheming.

you replied:

Hi!

…can we breakdown this tenet?

…are you intimating that Salvation is Granted without the intercession of the Holy Spirit and that those who reject the Holy Spirit are not blaspheming because they are not addressing the Holy Spirit but simply rejecting His Existence or Divinity?

Me: Consider this: The Jews knew of the Holy Spirit in a murky sort of way, as the Psalms frequently mention “your Spirit.” However, the revelation of the Persons of the Holy Trinity had still not been made. Yet, Our Lord warns them that because they have accused Himself of working miracles with the help of Beelzebub, they risk an unforgivable sin. IOW, it is attributing God’s work to the evil one that is blasphemy. So even without knowing or understanding the person of the Holy Spirit (as Christians do now,) they were still able to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

…and are you intimating that the Holy Spirit only Calls on already converted Christians?

No.

Is rejection of the Holy Spirit not a sin of Omission?

Not necessarily. But in any event it doesn’t constitute blasphemy

Is ignorance of God the same as rejection of God?

Again, not necessarily.

Thank you for your assistance.

Maran atha!

Angel

Faith, as we know is a gift from God. Lacking Faith may or may not be culpable. Therefore to deny the existence of the Holy Spirit, would be un-Christian, surely, but not necessarily culpable. Do we hold the Jews today guilty of sin for not believing in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity? No. At least the Catholic Church does not.

I hope I understood your question correctly.

 

[jcrichton]

I can’t believe that an offhand remark by me started all this argument about John deserting Jesus. Of course he did–at first. That’s obvious from the text. But, unlike the others, he returned, since he is recorded as standing with Mary at the foot of the cross. I didn’t state that he deserted Jesus merely because-------well, actually, it’s been so long now I don’t remember why I even mentioned it. Honestly, do we have to debate everything ad nauseam? Besides derailing the poor OP"s thread?

Hi, Della!

…that’s what happens when one sticks his/her nose in the Scriptures… a mess of thoughts come into view… :flowers::flowers::flowers:

…consider the fact that Scriptures are being studied… and while we may not get full satisfaction either way… the Word of God is getting exposed to the mind of man!

Consider too that the Holy Spirit can work in us so that the Full Revelation of the Truth is not only Revealed but also Lived!

Maran atha!

Angel