Assumption of st. Mary

[Roman_Catholic_1]

"Those ignorant of the past are slaves to the present’ ’ C.S.Lewis .Catholicism is generous to protestants today but has not always been so.

I’m sorry do you believe that Protestantism has always been “generous” to Catholicism? No. So why muddy the waters with talk of injustices done in the past by both camps? I don’t understand?

You were not free…

David you are looking at this all wrong, because you are looking at Catholic teaching as a Protestant and then suggesting that Catholics do not have freedom to accept your Protestant teaching. There is no force upon a man’s freedom within Catholicism. It is not (to paraphrase Chesterton) what a man is made to believe but, rather, what a man comes to believe. I “freely” came to accept Catholic teaching and, having accepted it, cannot believe the contrary. Not because I am not free to do so, but because I cannot unthink a truth. I cannot think the sun blue once I have already seen it yellow.

*“He cannot think one thing when he knows the contrary thing.” * - Chesterton

It is not that I am not “free” to accept your teachings. I am very much free to accept them but, after seeing truth, I am “free” to reject them as falsehoods.

You were free to…

Again, people are free to accept or reject Catholic teaching. It is remaining Catholic that becomes the problem. It is no different with Christianity in general. People are free to reject Christ, but doing so they no longer are Christian.

the list goes on and on with these non-essential doctrines.

First tell me what the non-essential and essential beliefs are and then show me where in the Bible you got this “list”. I think if you asked any two Christians what the “essentials” you would be bound to find differences. Why should anyone accept your “essentials”? Am I “free” to disagree with them?

Some topics should be open to debate

There has been much debate within the Catholic Church.

Good ,the bible is authoratative you say ,and that authority is what puts the brakes on the Assumption.

Authoritative, not the sole authority. In my job I am “authoritative” but I am far far from the sole authority. You chose the word not me

Protestants are free to disagree on everything under the sun,The only pure unity we can have is to have our souls washed by the blood of the lamb.

Are they free to accept the assumption? Are they free to accept any other teaching of the Catholic Church? Are they free to reject Christ? Are they free to reject the Bible? BTW, how are Catholics not included in this “pure unity” of our souls being “washed by the blood of the lamb”? Just what are you trying to say here?

You jump for joy because they become or may become Catholic

Nope, re-read my post:

Roman_Catholic:

Quite the opposite I jump for joy that Protestants have been led to Christ.

It is because they have been led to Christ that I jump for joy. I do not have heartache that some of been led to the Catholic Church though.

despite other catholic teachings

It is strange to me that I am having this discussion with you where you are trying to convince me that Protestants have freedom to “disagree” and accept contrary beliefs but you bring up your problems with Catholic teaching. Why do you not extend the same olive branch to Catholics that you extend to Protestants?

I am sure it happens both ways , but my experience has been that as much as 40 -60 % of my church/ groups are comprised of x- catholics . What is your experience ?

I don’t have any experience in your church so I could not speak intelligently about it. It does seem odd to me though that, being ex-Catholics, they were “free” to join your church groups I thought you have been telling me that Catholics give up their freedom once they become Catholic?

God bless you

 

[Jimmy_B]

Tell me ,did Jesus need the Jewish magisterium,and Jewish tradition to see scripture clearly…

Thanks for the laugh… I’m sorry but I couldn’t get past the first sentence because I was laughing so hard…“Did Jesus need the Jewish magisterium?” I’m still laughing… I’ll respond to your post tomorrow, maybe someone else will reply in the mean time… This is pretty funny…
.:extrahappy:

 

[joe370]

Yes. The more you repeat a lie the more it becomes truth .This in regards to another issue (disunity).and 36,000 divisions //////This is pure propaganda and deserves no respect for lack of unbiased scholarship.

How about a conservative 1000 isolated autonomous churches since the protestant reformation due to sola scriptura or is it due to something else?

Some whwere in my notes I have a good study (I think done by a Jew).

Dave, sounds like you have all the answers, so please answer the following question:

In one corner we have a group of protestant churches that defer to the bible** as their final authority** for doctrinal clarification, believing that Jesus was speaking in metaphor regarding John 6. In the other corner we have a group of protestant churches that also defers to the bible **as their final authority **for doctrinal clarification, believing the exact opposite. Since, as you suggest, the authoritative bible is the means for resolving doctrinal differences, use your bible to resolve this one??? Be the first person to not dodge this question.

 

[joe370]

Jimmy, well said; looking forward to a protestant response to this post.

Now, I’m afraid that you’re viewing Catholicism through a Protestant lens.

Catholics follow, Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition and the Church. So, I obviously as a Catholic know that not everything Christian is in the Bible… That’s the context from my perspective as a Catholic…

We aren’t the ones (the Catholic Church) who pick and chose the history that supports our position. And, the Catholic Church does not allow for “personal interpretation” of the Bible, in a way that is contrary to the Church and to Catholic teachings.

The Catholic Church were and are the guardians of Christian history and tradition and we don’t reject Christian history or Christian tradition.

When all you have is the Bible, a Catholic book, two thirds of the equation is missing… right?

How can you prove your point using a Catholic book, without all of the information needed to put it into context?

Now, has far a Christian history, and… who believed what, when, I think that the Catholic Church would have more of a handle on that considering the fact that they were there and were the only ones for hundreds of years, documenting, preserving and protecting Christian history and holding the ecumenical counsels… wouldn’t you agree?

Why would a non-Catholic try to use a Catholic Saint and Father of the Church to try to disprove a Catholic doctrine? That doesn’t make any sense to me. Of course people disagreed and that’s why we have ecumenical councils, the first being documented in the Bible. What do you think St. Paul’s letters were about? Defining something as an “infallible” belief and a Catholic dogma is a long and complicated process.
One cannot connect the Christian dots, without first connecting the Catholic dots, in proper order and in context. Catholic dogma isn’t just pulled from thin air, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum, nor does it occur overnight.

It’s easy to sit here today with a Bible and a computer and play “Monday morning quarterback”, hundreds of years after the fact. Many here, arguing against this belief may have come to their conclusions overnight, with little effort, little documentation, few resources, little man-power or man-hours and by excluding Christian History, Christian tradition, extra-biblical documents from early Church Fathers and others… passed down over the centuries and those things, which have come from ecumenical counsels over the past 2000 years but not the Catholic Church.

That is why we need a Church, a Pope and a Magisterium … Some answers have taken multiple lifetimes to define, by people who completely dedicated their entire lifetimes to Christ and His Church… no wives, no jobs… just Jesus and His Church. Many Catholic/Christian beliefs took hundreds of years to define. Many of those beliefs, are today, shared by our Protestant brothers, because they have decided not to reject something that started as a Catholic belief.

Once again… viewing Catholicism through a Protestant lens here, doesn’t work here.

Thank you for you post.

Your Thoughts?

 

[joe370]

Dave in your mind, does it even matter if a Christian belongs to one of the churches in the world today, whether that church is a church founded by God in the 1st century or that church is a church founded by a mere man in the 16th, 17th…21st century?

Can “all truth” regarding any one doctrinal truth taught by Jesus, still be found somewhere in the world today thanks to the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit? If so, then where? And, let’s assume that truth cannot be found in the CC which was founded by God in the 1st century.

GO…

 

[KathleenGee]

I was catching up on the Divine Liturgy, and went back to the reading for August 15, Assumption of Mary. I came across this written by Pope Pius XII,…‘your body is holy and excelling in splendor…’

'In their homilies and sermons on this feast the holy fathers and great doctors spoke of the assumption of the Mother of God as something already familiar and accepted by the faithful. They gave it greater clarity in their preaching and used more profound arguments in setting out its nature and meaning. Above all, they brought out more clearly the fact that what is commemorated in this feast is not simply the total absence of corruption from the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary but also her triumph over death and her glorification in heaven, after the pattern set by her only Son, Jesus Christ.

"Thus Saint John Damasene, the preeminent as the great preacher of this truth of tradition, speaks with powerful eloquence when he relates the bodily assumption of the loving Mother of God to her other gifts and privileges: “It was necessary that she who had preserved her virginity inviolate in childbirth should also have her body kept free from all corruption after death. It was necessary that seh who had carried the Creator as a child on her breast should dwell in the tabernacles of God. It was necessary that the bride espoused by the Father should make her home in the bridal chambers of heaven. It was necessary that she, who had gazed on her crucified Son and had been pierced in the heart by the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in giving him birth, should contemplate him seated with the Father. It was necessary that the Mother of God should share the possessions of her Son, and be venerate by every creature as the Mother and handmaid of God.”

Saint Germanus of Constantinople considered that it was in keeping not only with her divine motherhood but also with the unique sanctity of her virginal body that it was incorrupt and carried up to heaven: “In the words of Scripture, you appear in beauty. Your virginal body is entirely holy, entirely chaste, entirely the house of God, so that for this reason also it is henceforth a stranger to decay: a body changed, because a human body, to a preeminent life of incorruptibility, but still a living body, excelling in splendor, a body inviolate and sharing in the perfection of life.”

Another early author declares: “Therefore, as the most glorious Mother of Christ, our God and Savior, giver of life and immortality, she is enlivened by him to share an eternal incorruptibility of body with him who raised her from the tomb and took her up to himself in a way he alone can tell.”

All these reasonings and considerations of the holy Fathers rest on Scripture as their ultimate foundation. Scripture portrays the loving Mother of God, almost before our very eyes, as most intimately united with her divine Son and always sharing in his destiny.

Above all, it must be noted that from the second century the Holy Fathers present the Virgin Mary as the new Eve, most closely associated with the new Adam, though subject to him in the struggle against the enemy from the nether world. This struggle, as the first promise of a redeemer implies, was to end in perfect victory over sin and death, always linked together in the writings of the Apostles of the Gentiles. Therefore, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part of this victory and its final trophy, so the struggle shared by the Blessed Virgin and her Son was to end in the glorification of her virginal body. As the same Apostles says, ‘When this mortal body has clothed itself in immortality, then will be fulfilled the word of Scripture: Death is swallowed up in victory.’

Hence, the august Mother of God, mysteriously united from all eternity with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate at her conception, a virgin inviolate in her divine motherhood, the whole-hearted companion of the divine Redeemer who won complete victory over sin and its consequences, gained at the last the supreme crown of her privileges – to be preserved immune from the corruption of the tomb, and, like her Son, when death had been conquered, to be carried up body and soul to the exalted glory of heaven, there to sit in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal Kingof the ages.’

From the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus, 1950.

It took 1,950 years to state this…and that the faithful carried the tradition of this lay woman, the first evangelist of Christ – Mary.

 

[joe370]

Dave , you asked:

“Tell me ,did Jesus need the Jewish magisterium,and Jewish tradition to see scripture clearly…?”

No! Nor does Jesus need His chosen magisters of His established church, to see scripture clearly; He’s the author of sacred scripture. It’s the other way around Dave, and this is only possible for His established church for the simple fact that Jesus as per sacred scripture, is forever with His established church, guiding her into all truth, until the end of time - right? John 16 and John 14.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Dave , you asked:

No! Nor does Jesus need His chosen magisters of His established church, to see scripture clearly; He’s the author of sacred scripture. It’s the other way around Dave, and this is only possible for His established church for the simple fact that Jesus as per sacred scripture, is forever with His established church, guiding her into all truth, until the end of time - right? John 16 and John 14.

Short, to the point and well put!

 

[david_ruiz]

You seem to pick and chose the parts of Christianity and Christian history that suits you and I surrender to Christ and His Church. One involves ego and the other humility. You are mistaken about the Bible. The “Bible” is a Catholic book. The Torah for example, the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are in the Bible but are not the “Bible”. The Christian Church came before the Christian Bible (Old and New Testament) and Christianity and is rooted in Judaism, which came before the Torah. One cannot write about something that hasn’t yet occurred… The act always occurs before the document that describes that act. I hope this helps.

You bet ,the Lord has placed on us to be discerning of all things , for He discerns ALL things.(As Jesus walked and talked He challenged the people to discern if their traditions and actions, their leaders ,their magisterium were correct or had they gone astray from truth and spirit of their Holy Scripture)…So the Christian walk must be fed ,and it is like a fish -you must separate the meat from the bones. Indeed scripture tells us there is milk and meat and even fables to be dealt with. Is this ego or obedience to rely on the Holy Spirit for discernment ? I understand your reliance on the Church to do the separating of the meat from the bones for you .I am not sure that is humility ,certainly good following . One must be careful not to have false piety , abdicating the Lord’s gift of discernment on our church’s actions and decrees etc…I have stressed your good point of the act first then the writing. Catholics shoot down reliance on scripture as final authority because of this.Of course the first Christians did not have full scripture because they were still being written (for 70 years). Does that mean scripture is not authoratative ? They had the apostles themselves .We have their writings .They carry the same weight. To say scripture is not final is to say the apostles were not final.To say they may have said and practiced things , now not in writing is pure presumption ,and unbiblical .God is no dummy -He is the author of the wisdom of -“Get it in writing”…Certainly we can have practices , even dogmas not “in writing” (e,g, Christmas -Dec.25). Certainly their is nothing wrong with NOT having a practice or dogma not in "writing " (in Holy Scripture).Yet doing ANYTHING out of self-righteousness (ego) is sinful,-missing the mark .

 

[KathleenGee]

The fulfillment of Christ in Scripture is His church – the Word incarnated into His people at Pentecost…Tradition means how people have always understood…in the Holy Spirit.

If the Holy Spirit was not the life of Tradition, the life of the Church would not be passed down.

You can’t say there is history of the People of God in the Old Testament. And then when the New Testament comes about, it ends at Revelations…no people, just the bible…

There were no Bibles for a long time…people couldn’t have Bibles until the invention of the printing press.

If the bible was so important and necessary, than Jesus Christ would have had His to pass on to the Apostles and eveybody else in Kingdom Come.

The point there is that the Word of God is not found in a book print…we believe in the Living Word of God…no part taken out of context or removed…we believe in the wholeness of Scripture in the tradition it is understood, how it is believed and lived out by each generation of God’s people, life upon life…no divorce from one generation to another…just as the Word as whole, so as His people as a whole…a continuum insured through the transmission of faith through the Holy Spirit.

The believers themselves had faith and truth to add in regards to the communion of saints…Mary was venerated…you can’t find everybody’s take in the New Testament…but in the Church. The Vatican has the greatest library of the world, and our custom has always been to document the faith,development, and history of our peoples.

 

[david_ruiz]

I’m sorry do you believe that Protestantism has always been “generous” to Catholicism? No. So why muddy the waters with talk of injustices done in the past by both camps? I don’t understand?

David you are looking at this all wrong, because you are looking at Catholic teaching as a Protestant and then suggesting that Catholics do not have freedom to accept your Protestant teaching. There is no force upon a man’s freedom within Catholicism. It is not (to paraphrase Chesterton) what a man is made to believe but, rather, what a man comes to believe. I “freely” came to accept Catholic teaching and, having accepted it, cannot believe the contrary. Not because I am not free to do so, but because I cannot unthink a truth. I cannot think the sun blue once I have already seen it yellow.

*“He cannot think one thing when he knows the contrary thing.” * - Chesterton

It is not that I am not “free” to accept your teachings. I am very much free to accept them but, after seeing truth, I am “free” to reject them as falsehoods.

Again, people are free to accept or reject Catholic teaching. It is remaining Catholic that becomes the problem. It is no different with Christianity in general. People are free to reject Christ, but doing so they no longer are Christian.

First tell me what the non-essential and essential beliefs are and then show me where in the Bible you got this “list”. I think if you asked any two Christians what the “essentials” you would be bound to find differences. Why should anyone accept your “essentials”? Am I “free” to disagree with them?

There has been much debate within the Catholic Church.

Authoritative, not the sole authority. In my job I am “authoritative” but I am far far from the sole authority. You chose the word not me

Are they free to accept the assumption? Are they free to accept any other teaching of the Catholic Church? Are they free to reject Christ? Are they free to reject the Bible? BTW, how are Catholics not included in this “pure unity” of our souls being “washed by the blood of the lamb”? Just what are you trying to say here?

Nope, re-read my post:

It is because they have been led to Christ that I jump for joy. I do not have heartache that some of been led to the Catholic Church though.

It is strange to me that I am having this discussion with you where you are trying to convince me that Protestants have freedom to “disagree” and accept contrary beliefs but you bring up your problems with Catholic teaching. Why do you not extend the same olive branch to Catholics that you extend to Protestants?

I don’t have any experience in your church so I could not speak intelligently about it. It does seem odd to me though that, being ex-Catholics, they were “free” to join your church groups I thought you have been telling me that Catholics give up their freedom once they become Catholic?

God bless you

Now who is picking and choosing from history .My statement of Catholics are united but lack freedom and protestants are free but lack unity is an historical observation of 2000 years of history . Certainly you agree of our disunity ?Certainly you agree of our freedom ,of anyone starting a church based on his convictions ,and is still considered “protestant” Certainly you agree Catholics have a unity in belief .Certainly you agree that if a Cathoilc assembly/parish comes up with different dogma they can be excommunicated,and I believe rightly so.They would no longer be considered "Catholic.WE had such a parish here, They had a great ministry to the poor They also had a female "priest " or close to it.I went to one service and she had on priestly vestments.They are no longer Catholic,but still Christian ,in most of the main dogmas. That is all i am trying to say Remember ,for much of Church history ,your entire village or community was Catholic .Your entire country was Catholic .The entire Empire was Catholic . It was difficult to have any other personal conviction other than Catholic, without severe seperation and ostricizing etc.I understand today is different there is much more freedom for everyone .But again ,like the above parish ,you can not stray to far without being kicked out.Certainly individual denominations have the same rigidity .It is just that protestantism covers ALL but Catholic /Orthodox. Please do not be offended at the simple statement,and hoping the above helps put it in context…Evangelicals believe in one major essential-new birth ,born again/relationship with Christ. It’s opposite , “Depart ,I never knew you” …Indeed their has been much debate in Catholicism(this is healthy).A reading of "Church Fathers reveals this .Indeed what one Pope decrees the next may “undecree”.Certainly there was much heated debate over some marion doctrine for centuries amongst severalHoly Orders even to the point of death… OOOPS ! Reading down your blog this is a biggy. All denominations ,INCLUDING Catholics were included in that "pure unity " of believers whose souls have been washed by the precious Blood of the Lamb. Sorry if you thought I did not include Catholics. Just to make it clear there is a story of a soul approaching the pearly gates and he sees ST. Peter and shouts out if there any Catholics up there .St. Peter says ,“NO”. The soul then asks if there are any Lutherans up there. St.Peter answers ,“No”. The soul asks if there any Episcopals/Presbyterians /Orthodox etc.etc… St. Peter answers , “No. We don’t go by those names up here”. The soul then asks who then is up there . St. Peter answers ,“Just those souls who have been washed by the precious Blood of then Lamb”. Alleluia…The olive branch is there, in the hopes that because of free will the Truth may prevail in our hearts and minds.

 

[david_ruiz]

It seems like God thinks it is a good idea!
from:
fisheaters.com/mary.html

2 Kings 2:1-12
“And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind…And fifty men of the sons of the prophets went, and stood to view afar off: and they two stood by Jordan…And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven…And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more…”

Hebrews 11:5
“By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”

And predicted of Mary in Psalm 132:7-8:

“We will go into his tabernacles: we will worship at his footstool. Arise, O LORD, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength.”
If God would assume Elijah into Heaven, wouldn’t Jesus do the same for His own mother? Wouldn’t God do the same for the New Eve, the Ark of His Covenant, His most perfect creature, the woman who not only touched God, but carried Him in her own body, nursed Him, raised Him up from childhood, prompted His first miracle at Cana, stood at the foot of the Cross, etc.? The Catholic Church is the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom! Christ is the King, His Mother is the Queen, and we are their subjects.

And if Our Lady isn’t in Heaven and crowned, how did John see her there as he wrote in the Book of Revelation? And, please, note the use of words here: Mary was assumed into Heaven 2 she was taken up under GOD’S power; she did not ascend into Heaven under her own power as our Lord did! As always, the beauty of Mary’s story is due to the grace of God!

Just a quick shot ,but John saw many souls and saints in heaven in the book of Revelations .were they all 'Assumed" ? God could assume Mary ,but why does it not say it in the bile ? There were many writers and books(27) written about Mary’s time (Only one writer and book for Enoch and several for Elijah).This is circumstantial , but still very strong evidence that it did not happen .

 

[KathleenGee]

Interesting…the last passage of Revelations is an image of the Mass we share today, said every hour around the world…

We will be fully glorified like Mary at the end of the world…when our souls who are in heaven and purged of all inclination of sin will be rejoined with our bodies and then we will be glorified.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6988899]
Jon, if the infallible (error free declaration) - came with the benefit of a truly (authoritative) - ecumenical council would you consider the doctrine to be error free, like for example, the Trinitarian doctrine?

I would certainly consider it authoritative.

If so then why? You said: “I have doubts that any one part of the Church Militant is free from error,” so how can you be sure that the church militant overseeing these councils were free from error? Sorry for sounding like a broken record. LOL…

If you could get the Bishop of Rome in the same room with the patriarchs of the East, and they could come to an agreement on the issue, I would consider that a miraculous event, one which I could not but help to believe.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

When I look at the difference between the dormition of Mary vs the assumption of Mary in context to the rest of the chuch, it is a non-issue…same with filoque–in my opinion.

We are praying for church unity, restore the East with the West…

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Now who is picking and choosing from history .

I have never said anything about “picking and choosing” from history. I am not sure why this comment was directed towards me?

My statement of Catholics are united but lack freedom and protestants are free but lack unity is an historical observation of 2000 years of history

It’s an incorrect observation. As I said before in my previous post, you are looking at this from a Protestant perspective and saying that Catholics don’t have freedom to accept your Protestant beliefs. We can accept your beliefs and be Protestant but we are Catholics because we accept Catholic beliefs. We have not been made or forced to accept these Catholic beliefs.

Certainly you agree of our disunity ?

No. With Protestants being Christians there certianly must be unity somewhere to be found.

Certainly you agree of our freedom

Yes, Prostestant are just as free as Catholics. Protestants are free to reject their beliefs just as Catholics are free to reject their beliefs. It’s remaining Protestant or Catholic after exercising these freedoms where to problem arises.

Certainly you agree that if a Cathoilc assembly/parish comes up with different dogma they can be excommunicated,and I believe rightly so.

My point David is how could any Catholic or Catholic Parish do this if they don’t have freedom? For some reason you want to believe that Catholics are automatons. Perhaps because that is easier for you to cope with as opposed to the realization that people may actually believe what the Catholic Church teaches? To you they must be forced beliefs because, perhaps, to think that people may actually come to freely accept Catholic Dogma is scary to you? Absurd? Unreal? IDK what to tell you David? I came FREELY to accept Catholic Dogma. Now that I have seen truth I cannot think it untruth.

.They are no longer Catholic,but still Christian ,in most of the main dogmas.

That is a very telling admission on your part David. What are these dogmas that you think they hold that are not Christian? You mean these people can believe something that is not Christian? Where is their freedom that you have been talking to me about?

I understand today is different there is much more freedom for everyone.

No David you are wrong. I am not sure who to credit this to but it is true; people are free to believe what they choose but they will have to answer some day for what choose to believe.

But again ,like the above parish ,you can not stray to far without being kicked out.

David, how could someone possibly stray anywhere if they don’t have freedom to do so? People either have freedom and can therefore stray or they do not have freedom and therefore can’t go astray. You can’t have it both ways.

Please do not be offended at the simple statement

I am not offended by it anymore than I would be offended if you called a horse a dog. There is no offense, it’s simply incorrect.

Evangelicals believe in one major essential-new birth ,born again/relationship with Christ.

Careful with generalizations David.

Reading down your blog this is a biggy.

I don’t have a blog David.

All denominations ,INCLUDING Catholics were included in that "pure unity " of believers whose souls have been washed by the precious Blood of the Lamb. Sorry if you thought I did not include Catholics.

I don’t think you were if you look at your statement again:

Protestants are free to disagree on everything under the sun,The only pure unity** we **can have is to have our souls washed by the blood of the lamb.

The context of your comment was Protestants. You are welcome to clarify and I am glad you did but the context of your original statement was Protestant unity to which I reminded you Catholics are also unified with Protestants in.

God bless

 

[joe370]

David, I was just curious, why did you come here to CAF? Was it to learn about the catholic faith/doctrine (like I did a few years ago) - or was it to show catholics where they are supposedly veering away from what you (via your interpretation of your bible) - consider doctrinal truth? I can’t tell if you are attempting to learn or teach!

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

=joe370;6988899]
Jon, if the infallible (error free declaration) - came with the benefit of a truly (authoritative) - ecumenical council would you consider the doctrine to be error free, like for example, the Trinitarian doctrine?
I would certainly consider it authoritative.

But not infallible (error free)???

Quote:
If so then why? You said: “I have doubts that any one part of the Church Militant is free from error,” so how can you be sure that the church militant overseeing these councils were free from error? Sorry for sounding like a broken record. LOL…
If you could get the Bishop of Rome in the same room with the patriarchs of the East, and they could come to an agreement on the issue, I would consider that a miraculous event, one which I could not but help to believe.

Jon, this, for you, is the necessary criteria for believing the idea that a part of the church militant in the world today, could once again teach error free doctrine, just as the one church militant overseeing those earlier councils, did by teaching and defining error free doctrine?

 

[david_ruiz]

The fulfillment of Christ in Scripture is His church – the Word incarnated into His people at Pentecost…Tradition means how people have always understood…in the Holy Spirit.

If the Holy Spirit was not the life of Tradition, the life of the Church would not be passed down.

You can’t say there is history of the People of God in the Old Testament. And then when the New Testament comes about, it ends at Revelations…no people, just the bible…

There were no Bibles for a long time…people couldn’t have Bibles until the invention of the printing press.

If the bible was so important and necessary, than Jesus Christ would have had His to pass on to the Apostles and eveybody else in Kingdom Come.

The point there is that the Word of God is not found in a book print…we believe in the Living Word of God…no part taken out of context or removed…we believe in the wholeness of Scripture in the tradition it is understood, how it is believed and lived out by each generation of God’s people, life upon life…no divorce from one generation to another…just as the Word as whole, so as His people as a whole…a continuum insured through the transmission of faith through the Holy Spirit.

The believers themselves had faith and truth to add in regards to the communion of saints…Mary was venerated…you can’t find everybody’s take in the New Testament…but in the Church. The Vatican has the greatest library of the world, and our custom has always been to document the faith,development, and history of our peoples.

You know the church has been booming in China ,a land with few bibles .In contrast ,America ,the land with plenty of bibles is stagnant. Tell me, how many bibles do you need in a local church for it to prosper ? Did the old testament Jews have too few bibles also ? Then why did Scripture admonish them to teach their children the Word ,morning ,noon and night ?..Yse ,the vatican has a great library .It shows different response to Marion doctrine and other issues .Why would the Spirit give conflicting insight and revelation Why does St. Jerome say no ones knows the end of Mary and 500 years later another saint says Mary was Assumed . And Aquinas ? I understand your well-put belief that the church nevertheless is without error in dogma. But you must also admit, it would be easier for others to believe the Assumption if it were directly in the bible, or in 2nd or 3rd century tradition or writings, or if great saints did not disagree, or if popes did notrefused to make such a declaration until almost two thousand years later.

 

[freedomwriter]

I disagree with this. Jesus was not born into original sin because his Mother did not have original sin. If Mary had original sin then it would have been handed down to her child as we hand it down to ours from Adam and Eve.

Mary was saved from original sin at the moment of her conception by God. So that she was made perfect from God to bear a son, That is why when the angel appeared BEFORE she was pregnant with Jesus, and said Hail Mary Full of Grace!

Also I do not see where scripture states that if we believe in Christ we are justified in his eyes. If this were true the devil would also be justified in Christ.

Provide some scripture to back up your point. In Luke Gabriel says three things and all these things are true of the believer in Jesus. We are highly favored as Mary was (Ephesians 1:6), the Lord is with us (Matthew 28:20), and we are blessed (Ephesians 1:3).

Please show where in God’s Word that it says Mary was saved from original sin. If Mary was saved from sin then why did she say My spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior: This means Mary needed a Savior, and she knew she needed a Savior. I also don’t read where the Devil gave his life to Christ and lived a christian life.