Assumption of st. Mary

[Nicea325]

I have already provided scripture so the argument is not with me its with the Lord. You will have to tell him one day that you didn’t believe that his word was not sufficient for salvation

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Sorry,but Jesus never once taught that Scripture-Alone is sufficient for salvation,sorry but you are dead wrong. No you will have to tell him why you put a false doctrine in His mouth and claimed it as His own Words.

BTW: You cannot read your way into Heaven.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hey Dave and Freedom…Sacred Scripture (tradition committed to writing) -and Sacred Tradition (oral tradition not always explicitly committed to writing in the form of sacred scripture) - are both sources of revealed truths given to us by Jesus’ church and can be trusted and believed if you believe what your bible has to say about the spirit of truth guiding His church into all truth in perpetuity, so it’s important that we acknowledge them both and in practice reconcile one with the other, for they come from the same divine fount, His church; God has revealed both ST and SS to us through His Church. Neither of these truths, be it oral or written, would be available to you or me today if not for the CC’s direct involvement and influence. God has revealed everything to us through His Church and I don’t think it’s logical to embrace some things as inerrant truth and reject other things as manufactured lies peddled by Jesus’ church. This kind of logic cast all kinds of suspicion on the written word that was revealed to all by Jesus’ church - right?

You guys, using the holy bible as the sole rule of faith is a mis-use of the Bible. It was not created, nor contains instruction, to be used in such a way. It must be used in the proper context and interpreted in light of Apostolic Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church empowered by Christ to do said teaching:

He said to them…(Jesus’ Church leadership) - you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to **the ends of the earth." **

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Many Christians don’t realize (like my sister for example) - that even the idea of using the Bible as the only rule of faith (Sola Scriptura) - is actually a new invention propagated only in the past 500 years. It was unheard of before that point and was certainly not practiced by the Apostles or the early Christians. They would have been extremely perplexed at at the very idea.

Bottom line. if the CC has been teaching erroneously for centuries regarding things such as the IC or the AOM then it’s time to consider the idea that the CC could have taught erroneously in the 4th and 5th century when they finally collected, selected, compiled and eventually codified the written canon, in the midst of many **so called canonical books and apocryphal books making there way around the known world. It was from within the CC that doctrinal truth regarding the correct inclusion of books in your bible and the correct exclusion of books from your bible - was revealed. Outside the CC was nothing but one plinter sect after another teaching all kinds of heretical doctrine. In other words guys, your NT could have books in the bible that are not, and never were, **meant to be part of the inspired word of god, especially considering the fact that you guys think that the CC added 7 spurious books to the OT; this just adds more fodder for your claims, that the NT is error free (thanks to the authoritative proclamation of the CC) - all the while claiming that other authoritative proclamations by the CC are spurious at best.

Either the CC is right on a wholesale level, doctrinally speaking, thanks to the guidance of the holy spirit, the spirit of truth, Who is guiding the CC into all truth, and safeguarding the deposit of faith (be it word or letter) - from within and without, or, doctrinal truth was never attainable from the very beginning. This door doesn’t swing both ways guys.

I don’t think anyone here is ever going to change your minds but it is fun going back and forth in an amicable exchange. Dave and Freedom, why did you guys come here to CAF? Just curious. I know why I did 3 years ago. Was it to learn something about the catholic faith or to share with us something that you believe is lacking in our catholic faith eg the AOM is untrue?

Peace…

Well,as far as the king james bible , did the composers of it have the Latin Vulgate earliest documents from the vatican ?.Did they not have thousands of documents from which to form the same bible ? The documents are still here today to accept or reject or screw up (as some translations are doing).Yes the cc preserved much ,but it still must be judged by every generation.Just cause you did it once or twice centuries ago does not mean they must be weighed the same as originally…Why is your scenario "we have always bern right from the beginning to now or we have not ? Why could you not have started out o.k ,then go south on some topics ? You have this phobia yet some denominations are very close to CC doctrine-very little was "reformed "and much was held onto as correct.

 

[Jimmy_B]

wo getting testy ,but it’s cool. Reliance on tradition , per CC, makes Timothy a liar.for indeed scripture is NOT profitable without the CC Indeed CC says you need tradition and church to understand some of scripture .This si contrary to Timothy .It is also contrary to St. Augustine who said scripture was available to ALL men and Easy to understand and certainly listed no rival in it’s authority .He felt that was part of being Catholic ,the church he loved.It is so authoratative he admitted Mary’s immaculateness was against scripture (in that “all have sinned”) .Augustine still accepted the dogma however -strange.but perhaps harmless,in his day .Could he foresee that it would be required dogma along with her Assumption ? Would he have objected ?..Anyways ,timothy may have stated enough for us all.He did not need to add "final authority ".It mat have been understood ,for there certainly was no rival yet. That is tradition and an institutional church had not fully developed yet for him to need to clarify .He certainly did not say tradition or a church magisterium shall interpret for you and tell you how scripture is instructive and corrective etc.Indeed , Timothy held scripture as authoratative amidst apostles ,teachers ,elders ,bishops , traditions that you had in his day. Indeed , all the latter were subject to be true to scripture ,in truth and in spirit. Otherwise Timothy could not have said “All” in “All scripture is…”( He did not say “Some” as CC doctrine implies.

Hello David,

The way in which this is written, a person not familiar with the Bible might think that the person you’re quoting and writing about is named “Timothy” and that he “would have objected” and so on. When in fact, you are obviously writing about, First or Second Timothy in the New Testament, letters written by the Apostle, St. Paul, who was clearly not in favor of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone/Bible Alone).
It would be helpful if you actually posted the Bible verse(s) that you write about, rather than post your own opinions, or personal interpretation(s). If I were to agree with your errant, sixteenth century Protestant invention of Sola Scriptura, which I don’t, then using your own arguments here, your words here are totally meaningless, since they are all extra-biblical… right?

Why is it that the biggest supporters of Sola Scriptura are the ones who abuse it the most and are the ones who will take one or two Bible verses (out of context) and then add an hour of their own opinions and commentary, which are all extra-biblical?

Does this make any sense to you?

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[david_ruiz]

Dave, if we can historically and reliably conclude that Jesus founded a Church (as opposed to churches) - and endowed His one church with authority to teach via the perpetual guidance of the HS, then, and only then can we reliably conclude that the bible, given to the world by that same church, is the inspired word of God. Outside of this premise the bible is no different than any other book and becomes nothing more than another book claiming to be something (via circular reasoning) - it cannot prove.

The key then, logically speaking, is to find the historical church founded by God, endowed by God with the authority to teach, to the very ends of the earth until the end of time, and then and only then, can the answer to the question about Mary’s assumption be answered.

I understand your logic .The logic also fits with the Protestant meaning of “church”( something like the bride of Christ,made up of all believers whose souls have been washed in the blood ,and are written in the book of life.Of those are many saints and teachers and elders and bishops and lay people-it is definitely institutional and established ,but also spiritual.By both definitions of just what “church” is ,Mary’s Assumption question is being answered on planet earth.

 

[david_ruiz]

I Love the above quote! You see, when a person come to you and says, " my Church/ congregation/ Hall / group interpret the Bible this way."

What they are saying is, “**This is our Tradition!” ** Yet they won’t admit they have a tradition?
As far as John 6 goes, I’ve heard several Baptist ministers say That they believe the Catholic Church added to the passage to uphold the Eucharist.

But I think that’s why the Apostle John wrote it and was inspired to write it.
So all future generations would undeniably know, to be saved we must it His flesh, and drink His Blood.
In the Passover, did the Hebrews have to eat the lamb to be saved? Yes they did, if they did not eat of the Lamb, they would have died.

God bless,
john

I do not know ,did they have to eat the Lamb to be saved ? I thought they had to sprinkle the blood ,as a sign(symbol) on the doorpost and the angel of death passe over.The eating of the lamb was not for salvation but for sustenance for their long journey ahead,I think.

 

[david_ruiz]

Ever hear of the Catholic epistles? There in the N.T.

Evidence of the first use the written describing the Church as ‘Catholic’ 100a.d.
in one of his epistles on John 3:16, Not in the Bible, then again not all revelation of the holy Spirit IS written in the Bible.

Let’s see the Bible isn’t canonized til the fifth/ sixth century? Scripture was protected by the Catholic Church, teachings of the faith taught by the apostles were protected against heresy, by the councils of the Catholic church.

Peter is mentioned some 195 times in Acts,the next greatest name mentioned is be 29 times.

God bless,
John

Yes, thank the church for her early work .Now if she had only maintained steadfast to the end ,there would be less division .It is possible to stray , unless you believe in once saved always saved for a church.

 

[david_ruiz]

The Church is more than a mere pillar. The Church is the Temple of God, built of living stones. The term “pillar” refers not to the Church but to the TRUTH; the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth(1 Tim 3:15), not of itself.

You say scripture-the Bible-says its inspired(which I believe it is), fine. The Quran AND the Book of Mormon also claim divine inspiration.

Each of these books make claims to the truth, all of them either directly or indirectly contradict one or the other, and all of them claim divine inspiration. According to Protestant logic “since the book says so it must be true.” then are we to take the Quran or the BoM at their word?

They can’t all be true, can they? How do you discern the true one from the other false two?

To say “I believe it because I believe it”, is begging the question.

I thought protestants says All things are spiritually discerned , by the Spirit of God that is within us , when we are born again , and thereby we can determine those false books, for we have the mind of Christ . How else can there be an apostles or teachers or an elder or any of the other parts that can contribute of the body of Christ ?

 

[vulcano37214]

Catholicism does not adhere to the errant, sixteenth century Protestant invention of “Sola Scriptura” or Scripture Alone or Bible Alone. However, if you go back and read my earlier posts here, you will see that I did provide some Bible verses, which do help to put this belief in context. Moreover, there isn’t anything, anywhere in the Bible, that rejects this belief.

Thank you for your post./QU

I would not call using scrpture alone as errant. What other authority is there?

 

[joe370]

SemperReformada, you said:

Why elevate it to the level of dogma? There are any number of issues your chuch could define/clarify dogmatically but has seen fit not to.

Dogma, as you know, is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from…What is wrong with defining the AOM as such, if in fact it is a true teaching?

By the way, I do belong to the CC but it’s not my church; it’s Jesus’ church; He built it, is still building it: “I will build my church…”

Regarding your comment: your church could define/clarify dogmatically but has seen fit not to."

Like what just out of curiosity?

I am pretty sure you, as a Catholic, have to be obedient to your church in matters of assenting to its dogmatic declarations or be in danger of mortal sin. Perhaps I’m wrong but don’'t think so.

I too am pretty sure you as a protestant have to be obedient to your church in matters of assenting to its dogmatic declarations, but I have no idea if you will be in danger of mortal sin if you are not obedient. Is that the case?

It’s not a matter of being in danger of mortal sin if one, as a catholic, has doubts about the AOM. It’s a matter of deferring to the authority of Jesus’ church as is the case with every church yes - no - maybe? Now if someone was to deny the true presence or the Trinity or the incarnation,that would be a different story; I will look into it.

…but you still believe that SS as the Christians final authority, is necessary doctrine, even though that teaching is nowhere found in the holy bible. Why do non-Catholics insist on this (SS) - being made part of their doctrine?
Our conversation is not about sola scriptura nor do I believe that it is a necessary doctrine although I do believe it to be a true doctrine.

No, but could you please just indulge me just this once by answering the question? Like you regarding the AOM, I don’t understand why protestants insist on elevating SS to the level of dogma, considering the fact that that dogma is no where to be found in sacred scripture which is a violation of sola scriptura, and therefore should not be considered dogma. If I am wrong please provide scriptural proof and I will concede! Catholics, on the other hand, believe that doctrinal truth was/is revealed through Jesus’ church, be it by word (oral tradition) - or letter (written tradition) - and therefore the CC is not confined to just scripture, and this doctrinal truth, either in the form of oral tradition or written tradition, passed down through the centuries, can be trusted for the simple fact that the HS is guiding Jesus’ church (safeguarding the the entire deposit of faith) - into all truth until the end of time. Semp, I’m not trying to be combative, just honest and if we can’t agree, well, that’s cool; we are still brothers in Christ.

continued…

 

[joe370]

Could you please, when you get the chance, show me where the CC teaches, that willingly denying the bodily assumption of Mary is a mortal sin? At best, the CC has stated:

If anyone should willfully deny or to call into doubt that which has been defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the Catholic Faith.

That seems like a fair statement.
Isn’t that what I said?

No, you said it is tantamount to committing a mortal sin. To fall away from the catholic faith is just that, to fall away, like my sister did but I don’t believe that she is doomed to go to hell for not believing in the AOM. Every church has a charter of beliefs that must be followed otherwise their flock is in danger of falling away from that church’s particular brand of doctrinal faith. From the protestant perspective, does that mean that their eternal soul is in jeopardy?

If you willfully deny or call into doubt that which has been defined (in this case the assumption of Mary) know that you have fallen away completely from the Catholic faith.

Your catechism isn’t going to single out the assumption or any single doctrine but your last sentence seems to me to say the same thing.

You are right; it doesn’t single out out the assumption or any single doctrine. For someone to reject the doctrinal beliefs of the church (regardless of church affiliation) - is to fall away from that church’s doctrinal faith - right? But is it a mortal sin? The CCC is silent regarding the AOM and mortal sin. However for those you do commit a mortal sin, those sins can be forgiven. With a conversion of heart through the Sacrament of Confession, the sinner can seek God’s mercy and reinstate the state of grace that was previously obtained through the Sacrament of Baptism, but again, I can’t find anything that connects not embracing the AOM with mortal sin.

I’m not sure where the confusion lies. We seem to be saying the same thing yet disagreeing.

Nowhere does the CC say that it is a mortal sin not to believe in the AOM, however, it was stated (but not found in the CCC) - If anyone should willfully deny or to call into doubt that which has been defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the Catholic Faith. If they are synonymous then it must be stated somewhere in the official teachings of the CC regarding mortal sin related to the AOM?

Mortal sin means hell does it not? Many non-Catholics are going to heaven in spite of the fact that they don’t embrace the AOM as doctrine - right? We are saved by Jesus not His mother. In Genesis 3:19 the penalty for sin was not merely death but death and bodily corruption (to dust you shall return) and since Mary, according to the EOC and the CC, did not sin, thereby dodging death and bodily corruption (to dust you shall return) - it stands to reason that she remained incorruptible, ergo the AOM. If this is true, it’s a pretty marvelous doctrine in my book.

Peace brother…

 

[joe370]

Hey Dave, how’s it going?

Well,as far as the king james bible , did the composers of it have the Latin Vulgate earliest documents from the vatican ?

I am not sure why this matters; it is not germane to my point. There were many so called canonical books floating around early on, but eventually rejected once measured against Apostolic Tradition as well as apocryphal books making there way around the known world. It was from within the CC that doctrinal truth regarding the correct inclusion of books in your bible and the correct exclusion of books from your bible - was revealed. Your NT could have ended up with books in the bible that are not, and never were, meant to be part of the inspired word of god, if not for the CC. Now, by the time we get to the 16th century (king james bible) - this was no longer an issue; sacred scripture had already received its stamp of approval by the CC in the 4th century.

Did they not have thousands of documents from which to form the same bible?

Yup, thanks to the fact that the CC got rid of all those spurious books. For a while the book of Hebrews, revelation, James, some of Johns letter, and one of Peter’s letters were doubted as being part of the canon, while other books that didn’t make the cut today were embraced in certain churches in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries as part of the canon and read at church services. The thousands to which you are referring, were already considered part of the canon for roughly a thousand years. The debate was over. I don’t see your point???

The documents are still here today to accept or reject or screw up (as some translations are doing).

To reject…??? Really?

Yes the cc preserved much ,but it still must be judged by every generation.Just cause you did it once or twice centuries ago does not mean they must be weighed the same as originally…

So, the CC in the latter part of the 4th century, got lucky regarding the correct collection, selection, compilation and codification of the bible, but, according to your logic, could have still certainly taught erroneously regarding other things. Is this what you are saying? I thought the HS was guiding Jesus’ church into all truth as opposed to partial truth, which includes the correct inclusion of the books in your bible and the correct exclusion of books from your bible. **How do you know that the generation that eventually codified your bible didn’t get it wrong? **

Why is your scenario "we have always bern right from the beginning to now or we have not ?

I am glad you asked that question.It’s simple: Either the HS is forever safeguarding doctrinal truth…guiding Jesus’ established church into all truth or He is not. Do you doubt the power of God and His ability to preserve doctrinal truth in Jesus’ church, until the end of time? God cannot fail in spite of the fallible sinners leading Jesus’ church - right?

Why could you not have started out o.k ,then go south on some topics ?

Well, if it went south at some time in history, then I would no longer be a Christian for I would doubt the power of God to do what He said He would do.

You have this phobia

I have some phobia’s (like spiders; I hate spiders…LOL) - but not the one you are referring to. I trust God to do what God said he would do - that’s all.

yet some denominations are very close to CC doctrine-very little was "reformed "and much was held onto as correct.

I know and that’s awesome. I love it when churches merge, doctrinally speaking. We need to be one and united not many and divided - right?

Well, it’s late and I got to get up early. Have a good night…

 

[Jimmy_B]

I would not call using scrpture alone as errant. What other authority is there?

The authority that gave you Holy Scripture in the first place… The Catholic Church. The Bible didn’t magically appear.

 

[GaryTaylor]

i just wanted to make a couple of points on your argument. first of all the word for just in the original language is (dikaios) strong #1342. the same word is used numerous times in the NT.
for example in romans 1:17 says the just shall live by faith. The old testament saints were saved just as we are saved, by faith. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness,(dikaiosune) #1343 comes from the same word as (dikaios). but we know that Abraham had sinned. When we place our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior his righteousness is imputed to us as romans 4 clearly states. With regards to your reference to Luke 1 Zechariah and Elizabeth were (Just) the same way that Abraham was just, (by faith).
The Bible only speaks of 1 person who comitted no sin and that person was Jesus Christ. Hebrews 4:15. The Bible speaks of people being righteous but i do not find anyone else being sinless. .

Yours in Christ

Sam

Where does Mary commit sin the Bible? I may have missed that page?

 

[BlueSapphire]

Acts 13:35

Thou shalt not suffer thy holy one to see corruption;

It not only refers to Jesus, but also His Mother! :thankyou:

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mary is the New Ark the Covenant in Rev 11:18 - 12:17?

The Ark of the Old Covenant carried the Word of God made stone while the Ark of the New Covenant carried the Word of God made flesh when Mary was pregnant with Jesus.

The old Ark of the Covenant disappears in Jer 3:16. The new Ark of the Covenant resurfaces in Revelation 11:19 as the woman with 12 stars around her head. [Which all the recent Popes seem to firmly believe, as most Catholics, this is Fatima 1917, and was exactly what happened and described by thousands at Fatima]

The Ark of the Covenant has been restored to the temple, which is now heaven (See also Heb 9:1-12)

A woman with a crown is there - the new Ark

The woman in Revelation bore the King of the Israelites (Jesus) - who will rule the nations and is at God’s throne

The devil is very interested in destroying her but she is safe

Her children are all faithful Christians who “follow the lamb” (Rev 12:17)

The Israelites knew God used the Ark powerfully and they brought it into battle (Jos. 6:3-4). The Ark of the New Covenant, Mary, is introduced into the heavenly battle against Satan (Rev 11:19)

I believe we have a fundamental lack of understanding of exactly what the Bible is saying.

They are still looking all over Israel for the Ark, but the Ark of the Old Covenant will never be found again, because the Ark of the New Covenant has been found. The Ark of the Old Covenant was built immaculately. It was perfect, as much as it could be under the Old Covenant. If God would be this specific about the purity of the vessel that would carry the Word of God made “stone” (Ex 25:10) we think He would require purity of the Ark of the New Covenant, that would carry the Word of God made “flesh” (Rev 11:19)

God Bless,

You know MIchelle left an interesting comment which I really believe all should read. The question she answers revolves around faith but not really believing in God.

Michelle replies and mentions “Pascal’s Wager” which you should read. Especially those who are having trouble finding Mary, this thinking would apply.

God Bless, GT

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

Let’s suppose that the woman in Rev. 12 is Mary. Her soul could be in heaven w/out her body couldn’t it? There are others in Revelations who are described as being physically in heaven but no theologian, as far as I know, jumps to the conclusion that they have also been assumed body and soul into heaven.

Hi SR, and the answer is no. The Church teaches since Mary was freed from Original Sin and its consequences death could not claim her in the same way it takes each of us. It is the teaching and faith of the CHURCH that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven when her earthly days were complete. The CCC teaches she was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory and exalted by he Lord as Queen over alll things. Unlike the rest of the faithful who must wait until the last judgement Mary’s body and soul has already entered heavenly glory.

Now that is and has always been the teaching of the Church from the day our Dear Lord came to get her.

 

[rinnie]

May I also add that the teaching’s of Mary are from the Church. And not to derail the thread because the teachings of the Blessed Mother and the Church go hand in hand let me show you this.

Christ so loves the Church that he handed himself over for her Eph 5:25
Through his gifts sacraments and saving words his care for her and makes her holy, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word. Eph 5:26
His love makes her a resplendent bride, the church is splendor without spot or wrinkle or ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;Eph 5:27

Christ continues to nurture our life through the Church. You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the Church for your Mother. The body of Christ is one. Christ is the head of the body and th faithful are the members of the living body alive in the Holy Spirit. This is the teaching’s of our Lord and our living Church on earth.

Jesus loved us so that he sent his son to redeem us. He died andr rose for our salvation. He loved us so that he selected Apostle whom would build his Church and have the responsibility of carrying out and completing the work he began.

The Church shares in this life of the risen Lord, it members are baptized into the Church form a body with Christ as it head. It is through the Church that women and men are saved by coming to know Christ through him united in grace to the Father through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

It is through the CHURCH and the Church only that we can receive the Body and Blood of our Dear Lord Jesus Christ. This is not possible through no bible, or written word. It is only by the Power of the Holy Spirit that dwells in the Living Church which is God.

No matter how much you pray, read the word, you cannot receive the real Body and Blood our of Lord without his heaven on earth which is the Living Church. It is Jesus who by his death made this possible for us all. The bible states you have to eat the Bread and drink the cup in order to have eternal life in Christ!!!

 

[rinnie]

Beautiful story, rinnie. May God protect your husband’s health. One does not need to believe in the ability of the saints to hear our individual prayers to know that they pray for us, the Church Militant. Certainly, it is true God hears our prayers, and he hears the prayers of the company of Heaven on our behalf.

Jon

Amen Jon, And many many will never know until the last day. how our prayers to the Saints asking them to pray for us and others who may not be untied with us in faith, but are united to us in Love have been helped by our dear Saints.

It is by our Love for one another and our faith in Christ that keeps us all safe. And thank-you for your kind words. I pray for Gods protection daily and so far his health has been restored back to normal. It has taught us to have complete trust in Christ and never in money or material thing’s of this world again. Although it was a tough lesson it was worth every tear and fear.

For today we could care less about money, thing’s, its all about God! The way it should have always been:thumbsup: I always say God has a way of getting your attention. He sure got ours

 

[Nicea325]

Jimmy B;7007353:

Catholicism does not adhere to the errant, sixteenth century Protestant invention of “Sola Scriptura” or Scripture Alone or Bible Alone. However, if you go back and read my earlier posts here, you will see that I did provide some Bible verses, which do help to put this belief in context. Moreover, there isn’t anything, anywhere in the Bible, that rejects this belief.

Thank you for your post.[/QU

I would not call using scrpture alone as errant. What other authority is there?

Using scripture alone is errant. You cannot separate the church from the Word of God. The church…period! Jesus founded His Church and the belief he did not give it any authority is just plain absurd. That is called rebellion and that leads to chaos and mass confusion,hence the thousands upon thousands of different denominations,etc.
[/quote]

 

[joe370]

Hey Dave…

Dave, if we can historically and reliably conclude that Jesus founded a Church (as opposed to churches) - and endowed His one church with authority to teach via the perpetual guidance of the HS, then, and only then can we reliably conclude that the bible, given to the world by that same church, is the inspired word of God. Outside of this premise the bible is no different than any other book and becomes nothing more than another book claiming to be something (via circular reasoning) - it cannot prove.

The key then, logically speaking, is to find the historical church founded by God, endowed by God with the authority to teach, to the very ends of the earth until the end of time, and then and only then, can the answer to the question about Mary’s assumption be answered.
I understand your logic .The logic also fits with the Protestant meaning of “church”( something like the bride of Christ,made up of all believers whose souls have been washed in the blood ,and are written in the book of life.

I will gladly concede that the fractured Mystical Body of Christ,* (the bride of Christ, is made up of all believers whose souls have been washed in the blood)* - is comprised of all churches regardless of denomination, of which Jesus is the head and savior, but only one of these churches comprising Jesus’ fractured Mystical Body, was founded by Jesus; the rest were founded by by man, and therefore the logic that I have employed does not fit with the protestant meaning of church. We cannot historically and reliably conclude that Jesus established all of these man-made protestant churches in the 1st century, in Jerusalem on Pentecost for they all are products of the 16th century Protestant reformation.

Dave, help me find the historical church founded by God circa AD 33, in Jerusalem on Pentecost by Jesus, endowed by Jesus with the authority to teach, to the very ends of the earth, until the end of time? That is the church that knows the truth regarding the assumption of Mary.

Of those are many saints and teachers and elders and bishops and lay people-it is definitely institutional and established ,but also spiritual.

Teachers, saints, lay people and elders belonging to different autonomous churches with their own unique charter based on Sola Scriptura, isolated from one another and instituted by men as opposed to God, which begs the question: why the need for teachers if the bible as opposed to people, is the Christians final authority? Take it right to sacred scripture for the answer; no need for any fallible teacher - right?

By both definitions of just what “church” is ,Mary’s Assumption question is being answered on planet earth.

Yup…The question gives way to 2 different answers though, depending on which church one belongs to. Which church should we trust: the church founded by Jesus (I will build my church…) - or a church founded by man?

Dave, Jesus was suppose to be the head of just one united Body of believers called the church,** (as opposed to divided, isolated autonomous churches)** - with many members, all of which were not to have the same function - right?

Did God fail to be the head of just one church started by His Son, or did people fail God, by starting their own churches?

Romans 12:4 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.