Assumption of st. Mary

[Jimmy_B]

Hi Jimmy B- In response to #342,yes I believe in the biblical miracles.My direct evidence is that they are in the bible itself ,with direct eyewitness testimony …

Well, that’s great, if you can trust a Catholic book (the Bible) then you shouldn’t have a problem with a Catholic belief in the Assumption of Mary.

 

[joe370]

Hey Dave…

Jesus did not teach AOM. Fullness of truth is not a place , it is a person -Jesus and His Vicar on earth is the Holy Spirit ,as early fathers noted.When he enters you ,you become one with him and have His mind . All such people are baptized into His bride ,His body ,His CHURCH.This church is a pillar of truth .it is not the interpreter of truth ,or the referee even .We merely are a reflection of Him , **the Holy Spirit .He is the interpreter and referee etc **

.I understand your position that Jesus left and therefore appointed a Vicar -Peter ,who in turn annointed successors which continued (mostly had to be Christian Italian to be a successor)-to head the church, which would be guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit.This church is the Holy Roman Catholic Church.I understand yours ,why can’t you understand mine ?

I think I’ve got it:

1)The holy spirit is your interpreter/referee and my interpreter/referee, the
interpreter/referee for all Christians, regardless of denomination?

1. I defer to what my church teaches and you defer to what your church teaches and we should respect this fact? I agree friend.

God bless…

 

[david_ruiz]

Dave…

And 500 years later, we see hundreds and hundreds of isolated autonomous PC’s, all of which claim to be getting back to what Jesus founded. Are you suggesting that all one needs to do is pick one of these churches, and one will be in touch with what Jesus founded?

That is quite possible , though not one may be perfect ,yet,but perfect enough to equip you for the good works you were ordained to do since the foundation of the world.(the wheat and tare thing is for types of people ,churches,and within a church-as exemplified in the 7 churches in Revelations

I thought we were talking about good/bad churches ,dogmas -not people . "Only that church " you know is in your tradition ,respectfully, just NOT in the bible.I am praying you simply understand our position ,to be able to reiterate it 100%,as i do yours.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hey Dave…

I think I’ve got it:

1)The holy spirit is your interpreter/referee and my interpreter/referee, the
interpreter/referee for all Christians, regardless of denomination?

1. I defer to what my church teaches and you defer to what your church teaches and we should respect this fact? I agree friend.

God bless…

1. 2 only applies when 1 is applied

 

[david_ruiz]

hey dave…

Of course they differentiated petra from petros. When the translation of the original aramaic was made into greek the word petra which denoted peter was simply changed by the translator to petros because petra has a feminine ending and petros has the masculine ending. It would not be fitting to call simon by a girl’s name - right? Calling simon petra would be like calling me josephine. There actually are several places in the new testament where the aramaic is preserved and used to identify simon as rock. Not to mention the fact that if the nt writers wanted to call simon a little stone they would have used the word lithos. Why is the following word (cephas) - which means massive rock, used instead of evna which means little stone? As a matter of fact, why isn’t the word petros used in the following passages, in either the greek nt or the english nt?

John 1:42
and he brought him to jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “you are simon son of john. You will be called cephas, which, when translated, is peter.”

1 corinthians 1:12
what i mean is this: One of you says, “i follow paul”; another, “i follow apollos”; another, “i follow cephas “; still another, “i follow christ.”

1 corinthians 3:22
whether paul or apollos or cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours,

1 corinthians 9:5
don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the lord’s brothers and cephas?

so is a massive rock feminine ? I am not a greek student . All i can do is study the debate online , and there are plenty of scholars showing peter as not the rock and some on your side. Part of me says so what if he is called the rock. He caertainly was first among equals with the apostles , even though they quarrelled with themselves as to who would be greater after this . Supposing he did first use the keys to preach the first sermon ,the other apostles used the same keys to preach also .it is still a stretch to say jesus was making him head bishop , over the other apostles , and that he would appoint a successor of the keys (not the other apostles ,still being alive) and the successor likeawise for all time would appoint his succesor-still a stretch.

 

[david_ruiz]

Well, that’s great, if you can trust a Catholic book (the Bible) then you shouldn’t have a problem with a Catholic belief in the Assumption of Mary.

Except it ain’t in the Catholic bible. God tells us me to trust the B

ible and tradition (if it is biblical)

 

[david_ruiz]

God did not pick just anybody to be the tabernacle for his Son. We Catholics believe that Blessed Mary was born without the stain of original sin (immaculate conception), by God’s grace lived free of sin and upon her death was assumed bodily into heaven.

Martin Luther, “father of the Protestant reformation”, also believed in the immaculate conception.

I am not sure how many Protestants believe Mary had biological children after Jesus. Those who do are generally misinterpreting the Holy Bible around language translation issues. Also, the Bible may be interpreted a kazillion conflicting ways and is by the multitude of different Protestant denominations. Catholics have the Magisterium (direct successors to the Apostles) to guide us.

Mary was “a human being” (she did not have a divine nature). I wouldn’t say that she was “just a human being” as that usually carries the sense of “no better or worse than anyone else” and that is most certainly NOT the case!

Talk about conjecture , not divine , but not just human ? Was she beter than John the Baptist ? Jesus said none was better ,I think. I do not like “just” either .To be scriptural ,apostolic,holy, she was “full of grace” . Did she need to be anything else ? Oh, but she conceived the most Holy Creator of the universe, yes .A bit like the Eucharist needed to be held in Gold , yet He enters us . Are we not His temple ? Does He not indwell us, when we are born again ? He is in our our corruptible flesh ,put to death and never the less Christ liveth in me - JUST LIKE MARY,FULL OF GRACE. I believe if you are regenerateddf , you ARE full of grace. Mary was full of grace ,and she will be honored and remembered ,a long with the hall of fame saints (Abraham ,Isaac ,Jacob ,David ,Moses etc,.forever) Anything beyond that is conjecture ,and should not be made required infallible dogma.This temptation was avoided by 1930 years of Catholic Magisterium.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hey Dave…

Of course they differentiated petra from petros. When the translation of the original Aramaic was made into Greek the word petra which denoted Peter was simply changed by the translator to petros because petra has a feminine ending and petros has the masculine ending. It would not be fitting to call Simon by a girl’s name - right? Calling Simon Petra would be like calling me Josephine. There actually are several places in the New Testament where the Aramaic IS preserved and used to identify Simon as Rock. Not to mention the fact that if the NT writers wanted to call Simon a little stone they would have used the word lithos. Why is the following word (cephas) - which means massive rock, used instead of evna which means little stone? As a matter of fact, why isn’t the word petros used in the following passages, in either the Greek NT or the English NT?

Cephas could be rock or stone -massive i do not think so -if it is a mass of rock as detached from bigger rock-I understand your logic of feminine/masculine.I am not sure the two Greek words are the same .Indeed ,in classical Greek they are two different words/meaning ,not gender based .Did this rendering last till Jesus’s days ,I do not know.
If indeed petra is feminine , it is used to denote large stone in Matt 27,to Christ Himself in Mat 27-and “the rock (petra) was Christ.” Is Christ feminine ? You point out the Greek word litho ,but there is also the word in aramaic -shua could have been used .See, it is a mess perhaps purposely by the Lord . Again ,the rest of scripture does not uphold popery-all we have is this Matt16.-which was never interpreted for popery until 3-4th century. Peter is regarded as first among equals ,though later Paul is top dog too,as early lists of bishops of Rome /QUOTE]…

If we go to early fathers:.Ignatius says Jesus is the Key and Rock(epistle to Philadelphia) Justin Martyr talks of Jesus being the Rock,Shepherd of Hermas -Jesus as rock-they did not address Matt 16-they certainly did not proclaim Peter as the rock. Later Cyprian recanted his writing of any primacy to the Bishop of Rome. It is not until this time when the bishop of Rome Stephen invoked matt16 as a defense against Cyprian over a dispute on baptism.This is what i mean by having ulterior motives in the invocation-to win prestige ,power in an argument a non-heretical one (Stephen did not believe baptism to be regenerational ,but merely to forgive sins-hence any baptism is acceptable while Cyprian wanted new baptisms if a baptized person came from a heretical sect ). Again ,first time Matt 16 briefly used (255A.D.).In 382 Damasus uses the Matt text heavily and the rest is History

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas, which, when translated, is Peter.”

1 Corinthians 1:12
What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas “; still another, “I follow Christ.”

1 Corinthians 3:22
whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours,

1 Corinthians 9:5
Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

 

[david_ruiz]

There is a passage in Matthew where Jesus comes to be baptized and John protests that Jesus should baptize him instead. But Jesus insists in order to fulfill the law of Moses. Mary’s offering in the temple was for the same reason— to fulfill the law of ritual purification from the flow of blood, but this does not mean that she had sin any more than Jesus did. Or do you think that a woman becomes sinful because she has given birth?

Also by your interpretation of Romans 3:10 the Gospel writer Luke must be mistaken when he writes in Chapter 1 that both Zechariah and Elizabeth were “just in the eyes of God, blamelessly following all the commandments of the Lord.” (my emphasis)

Good point but I think Jesus was baptized to be an example also for us .Did Mary get purified , and are woman to do that today ?.. So "all have sinned "is to be taken loosely ? You forgot to mention Job was perfect and there are other references to saints being upright ,perfect .the bible does not lie ,nor contradict .Faith is what accounts for righteousness and even perfection.There is a basic Catholic premise that a perfect sacrifice was necessary to open the gates to a perfect God, and only one could do that, the perfect Jesus .Mary ,according to you ,could have died for our sins and opened up the gates of heaven .Justice would have been served. Even St. Augustine did not skirt around the bible being perfectly clear ,that all have sinned ,except for Jesus, and Mary. Quite sad and strange to see Augustine contradict his belief in the full authority of the Bible

 

[david_ruiz]

“…she was just a human being, with the same sin nature and everyone else…”

What is this belief based upon? Obviously, there is no biblical evidence that St. Mary ever sinned. So, is this Protestant, extra-biblical speculation?

**Or, Maybe it’s based on Protestant tradition… **

Jimmy , based on that logic ,thousands of people in the bible did not sin ,for it is not mentioned that they did in the Word ,right ?

 

[david_ruiz]

How do you know it didn’t happen?

I think its safe to say the Blessed Virgin is in Heaven, so while there is no definitive evidence of how this happpened (and therefore shouldn’t be doctrine), there’s also no contradiction of the Assumption. And in the east, they believe in the Dormition. While different, not radically so.

You make the argument seem so harmless ,except that you Must believe it as infallible .You are not free as a catholic not to believe ,and remain a Catholoc
Jon

 

[david_ruiz]

Would you like to know why Jimmy responds to you the way he does? It’s because it wouldn’t matter if he provided hundreds of documents written on sheep skin or pictures of writings made 2,000 years ago, you would still disagree. The reason he goes of topic to talk to you about who brought the world the bible (Catholic Church) is because he’s trying to prove a point. For example, the Church can prove through apostolic succession and hundreds of writings that Peter was the first pope and these writings go back to very early Christianity and even the bible, but when presented with these facts you still disagree because it’s “not” in scripture. (it is in Catholic interpretation) So why provide proof for something that you’ve chosen to not believe no matter what the evidence?

You might be right of our stubborness, but the example you chose- apostolic succession-has similar weakneses.Definitely more debateable than Assumption ,but still having documents coming at much later dates than they should have if indeed it was of earliest tradition

.

 

[Jimmy_B]

"…she was just a human being, with the same sin nature and everyone else…"

What is this belief based upon? Obviously, there is no biblical evidence that St. Mary ever sinned. So, is this Protestant, extra-biblical speculation?

**Or, Maybe it’s based on Protestant tradition… **

You wrote - *Jimmy , based on that logic ,thousands of people in the bible did not sin ,for it is not mentioned that they did in the Word ,right ? *

David,

Who would these “thousands of people be”? And, are they found in the Old Testament, New Testament, or both? Are we reading the same Bible? I ask this, because Salvation history involves, sinning, then asking for forgiveness, then being forgiven by God… facts please. There are about 2600 people total, named in the Bible, here is a site where their names are listed. Please provide me with the “thousands” of sinless people that you speak of and provide me with the bases for your exaggeration here.

---

**Actually don’t bother, because it won’t matter anyways, because even if there were these “thousands of people” listed, St. Mary is the only person to escape Original Sin and is the one person that early Christian tradition and the Church says, was assumed. Nice try though. **

---

**Finally, why are you posting your comments here, in way where people responding to you cannot carry your quotes to their posts? **

---

Your thoughts?

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;7036109:

You wrote - *Jimmy , based on that logic ,thousands of people in the bible did not sin ,for it is not mentioned that they did in the Word ,right ? *

David,

Who would these “thousands of people be”? And, are they found in the Old Testament, New Testament, or both? Are we reading the same Bible? I ask this, because Salvation history involves, sinning, then asking for forgiveness, then being forgiven by God… facts please. There are about 2600 people total, named in the Bible, here is a site where their names are listed. Please provide me with the “thousands” of sinless people that you speak of and provide me with the bases for your exaggeration here.

---

**Actually don’t bother, because it won’t matter anyways, because even if there were these “thousands of people” listed, St. Mary is the only person to escape Original Sin and is the one person that early Christian tradition and the Church says, was assumed. Nice try though. **

---

**Finally, why are you posting your comments here, in way where people responding to you cannot carry your quotes to their posts? **

---

Your thoughts?

.

Jimmy- you are the one who claims Mary did not have the sin ,that the bible gives no evidence that she sinned -This is true .By your own criteria (no specific sin mentioned in scripture ) ,you could apply that to other people in the bible that do not mention them sinning).That is all I was saying .It is assumed ,extrapolated that to be born after Adam ,you have sin.That is the biblical evidence .There is no specific biblical evidence that she was exempt from this…Furthermore ,leaving Jesus behind (when He was 12) was not an error partly by Mary ? She only had one child (catholically speaking)-couldn’t keep track of one child ? How about at Capernuum , where she was with those who thought Jesus was besides himself and wanted Jesus to come home to rest . What , He just starts His ministry , and perfect Mary doesn’t get it ,and wants to bring Him home ?..Have no idea why you can’t quote me ,just learned myself -this is all new to me -wish I could do it as good as you guys -easier to read etc .Sorry ,I am trying

 

[LittleSoldier]

Rinnie,
In LDS, people are encouraged to develop their own light and not just bask in the **reflected light **of those around them, of greater faith and devotion. This is especially important with teenagers who have parents of strong faith.

I am always concerned when I see Catholics raise up their members that have dedicated their life to Christ, as if it is their own accomplishment. Priests, Bishops & Nuns deserve immense respect for what they do, but mature Catholics should not be basking in their reflected light, and just doing their 1hr of Mass per week.

I’m afraid you have a quite mangled view of what the Church teaches. Catholics know that without God we are nothing. We wouldn’t even be here! Not even our lives belong to us - they belong to God. That is one reason why suicide is such a grave sin. We have the use of the lives God created and we have the gift of free will, but we do not ever take credit for what we do because our intelligence, our faith, our very ability to pray comes from God alone.

That being said we do look to the saints because we can learn from them, as we can learn from the Pope, the bishops, and the priests. We don’t bask in their “reflected light” - they share their knowledge with us and help us. We are all member of the Communion of Saints, even those in purgatory and it is only right that we help each other.

I am saddened by your statement. One hour of Mass per week? No. *** Never only one hour of Mass per week!*** We are Catholics 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It should show in the way we treat others (for as we treat them we are treating Christ), the respect for the world we were given dominion over, the fight for justice and freedom world-wide. We sin, like all people, and of course we are not perfect but I don’t take off my “Catholic suit” after Mass. I never take it off!!

Somehow the quote function got messed up. I apologize if I have the wrong poster quoting.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Would somebody who is good at this sort of thing post instructions on how to respond to quotes without putting responses in the quote itself?

This thread is very hard to follow. I don’t know who is saying what. In fact, it is the worst thread I have ever seen on CAF. Puhleeze, people know how to change the letter size, the color, etc. but don’t know how to respond to a part of a quote? It’s the same thing!

I’ve gone back through and it is an absolute mess. I would like to respond to some posts but I cannot figure out who posted the quote.

How can we communicate this way?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You make the argument seem so harmless ,except that you Must believe it as infallible .You are not free as a catholic not to believe ,and remain a Catholoc
Jon

David, you are so quick to debate that you missed Jon is our resident Lutheran and not Catholic (though I am sure he would identify as a catholic ). Knowing now that Jon is Lutheran, can you answer his question? What is the problem with believing in the Assumption? Can it not be one of those “secondary issues” that I hear about within the Evangelical world so often? Why not? Or is your problem with it being a binding belief on the faithful (ie “You are not free as a catholic not to believe ,and remain a Catholic”)? Which is it?

Speaking of Lutherans:

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Luther’s Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).

Did Luther say this because the Catholic Church made him? Notice the date.

God bless

 

[david_ruiz]

Would somebody who is good at this sort of thing post instructions on how to respond to quotes without putting responses in the quote itself?

This thread is very hard to follow. I don’t know who is saying what. In fact, it is the worst thread I have ever seen on CAF. Puhleeze, people know how to change the letter size, the color, etc. but don’t know how to respond to a part of a quote? It’s the same thing!

I’ve gone back through and it is an absolute mess. I would like to respond to some posts but I cannot figure out who posted the quote.

How can we communicate this way?

tetsing

 

[Todd520]

I’m afraid you have a quite mangled view of what the Church teaches. Catholics know that without God we are nothing. We wouldn’t even be here! Not even our lives belong to us - they belong to God. That is one reason why suicide is such a grave sin. We have the use of the lives God created and we have the gift of free will, but we do not ever take credit for what we do because our intelligence, our faith, our very ability to pray comes from God alone.

That being said we do look to the saints because we can learn from them, as we can learn from the Pope, the bishops, and the priests. We don’t bask in their “reflected light” - they share their knowledge with us and help us. We are all member of the Communion of Saints, even those in purgatory and it is only right that we help each other.

I am saddened by your statement. One hour of Mass per week? No. *** Never only one hour of Mass per week!*** We are Catholics 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It should show in the way we treat others (for as we treat them we are treating Christ), the respect for the world we were given dominion over, the fight for justice and freedom world-wide. We sin, like all people, and of course we are not perfect but I don’t take off my “Catholic suit” after Mass. I never take it off!!

Somehow the quote function got messed up. I apologize if I have the wrong poster quoting.

Little Soldier,
My point was some catholics should be cautious about living in the reflected light of the Saints. This is a risk for people of all faiths, but I’ve seen it more from Catholics - maybe because of the sheer qty and quality of Saints in 2,000 yrs

In no way am I implying all catholics are lazy or lapsed Catholics. My parents were wonderful Catholics, and I’m constantly heartened by reading the posts from Catholics on this board.

 

[david_ruiz]

David, you are so quick to debate that you missed Jon is our resident Lutheran and not Catholic (though I am sure he would identify as a catholic ). Knowing now that Jon is Lutheran, can you answer his question? What is the problem with believing in the Assumption? Can it not be one of those “secondary issues” that I hear about within the Evangelical world so often? Why not? Or is your problem with it being a binding belief on the faithful (ie “You are not free as a catholic not to believe ,and remain a Catholic”)? Which is it?

Speaking of Lutherans:

Did Luther say this because the Catholic Church made him? Notice the date.

God bless

O.K.=-Sorry ,but means the same . I’ll change" you" to “a catholic” must believe in the Assumption or not be a Catholic etc .Yes, Luther was very Catholic in many ways …Some have said if he were not excommunicated (the situation handled differently) ,he would be a Catholic saint today.He was learned and devout . Catholics quote him when favorable , even though they find what he did deplorable, because they believe protestants are in the same boat as Catholics, in the sense that we are boxed in by our "Church " , that it must be "right’ ,even infallible .Right ? Catholics teach their church infallible in dogma and can not see ,nor believe ,ANY dogma error-and state an all or nothing attitude .“Either we are the only church Jesus founded , and will remain perfect , or we are not”. Hence , protestants are in the same boat ,so we will fall apart when confronted with a possible error -like Luther declaring Mary Immaculate. Trouble is we are not. The truth shall set you free.We are free to see the good in Catholic history ,but free to call out it’s errors because we apply the same judgement to ourselves. I am not tied to denomination, to the perfection of a leader,to history etc . May we be tied and a slave to Christ ,who is everything and we nothing ,and the light He has shed before our feet. So , I do not fear Luther’s statements , for I do not follow him. To me , it makes him all the more credible .He was wrong with his Mariology , but more accurate than Rome’s .Mariology. Luther -“How will we endure Rome’s terrible idolatries. It is not enough that they venerated the saints and praised God in them, but they actually made them into gods.They put that noble child ,the mother Mary , right in front of Christ.They fashioned Christ into a judge and thus devised a tyrant for anguished consciences, so that all comfort and confidence was transferred from Christ to Mary,and then everyone turned from Christ to his saint.Can anyone deny this ?” Lutheran Marian theology -Wikipedia.He rejected active invocation of Mary as formulated in such prayers as the “Hail Mary”. So the harm,does belief in the Assumption lead to invoke prayer to Mary or not ?