Assumption of st. Mary

[joe370]

Dave you said:

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.

If sola scriptura (the bible alone) - is the Christians final authority via individual interpretation, how is this man-made tradition working in a land with few bibles?

Why would the Spirit give conflicting insight and revelation

What about the conflicting insight and revelation in the various isolated autonomous protestant churches? Is the spirit of truth responsible for this doctrinal division or, are the teachers of these man-made churches responsible?

Why does St. Jerome say no ones knows the end of Mary and 500 years later another saint says Mary was Assumed . And Aquinas ?

That’s simple. There have been and always will be conflicting positions in the CC but once the CC convokes as a congressional body and defines an ambivalent piece of doctrine, the matter is settled. For example, Aquinas acquiesced regarding the official teaching of the CC regarding our blessed mother Mary.

This sort of thing is impossible for sola scriptura advocates in the protestant world.

I understand your well-put belief that the church nevertheless is without error in dogma.

Dave if they can err regarding the teachings of Christ, then your bible becomes suspect. Surely you can see the logic in that statement???

 

[joe370]

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.

Freedomwriter, show me in God’s word where God’s word explicitly or implicitly states that God’s word is the final authority for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness and ultimately for resolving doctrinal differences? Provide some scripture to back up your point.

 

[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.

 

[david_ruiz]

Freedomwriter, show me in God’s word where God’s word explicitly or implicitly states that God’s word is the final authority for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness and ultimately for resolving doctrinal differences? Provide some scripture to back up your point.

Show me where it says tradition and magisteriums are the final authority for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness etc.? Is not the church have Jesus as the cornerstone and the 12 apostles as a foundation .Is not Jesus the word incarnate ? He is not tradition incarnate .Do we not have in writing what the apostles taught ? The church is built on the above : Christ ,the apostles and the writings (Holy Scripture). The church (a pillar ) is being built on them. Anything that is wood, hay or stubble ,not agreeing with Christ ,the cornerstone ,or the apostles and their writings in Sacred Scripture shall fall away and not be part of the pillar on that judgement day.But for now .we have wheat and chaff together .God help us for we are the light in this world ,His pillar of truth ,His temple.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Show me where it says tradition and magisteriums are the final authority for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness etc.? Is not the church have Jesus as the cornerstone and the 12 apostles as a foundation .Is not Jesus the word incarnate ? He is not tradition incarnate .Do we not have in writing what the apostles taught ? The church is built on the above : Christ ,the apostles and the writings (Holy Scripture). The church (a pillar ) is being built on them. Anything that is wood, hay or stubble ,not agreeing with Christ ,the cornerstone ,or the apostles and their writings in Sacred Scripture shall fall away and not be part of the pillar on that judgement day.But for now .we have wheat and chaff together .God help us for we are the light in this world ,His pillar of truth ,His temple.

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.

 

[joe370]

Show me where it says tradition and magisteriums are the final authority for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness etc.?

OK…By the way, tradition is not the final authority for resolving differences either, so I agree with you regarding that point. Jesus’ church has the final authority. The following passages were addressed to Jesus’ one church; magisterium simply means teaching office:

"He said to them…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. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

*"**Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. ***They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." Why doesn’t the author of Hebrews tell us to obey the bible?

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

"Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."

Is not the church have Jesus as the cornerstone and the 12 apostles as a foundation .Is not Jesus the word incarnate ?

 

[david_ruiz]

Dave you said:

If sola scriptura (the bible alone) - is the Christians final authority via individual interpretation, how is this man-made tradition working in a land with few bibles?

What about the conflicting insight and revelation in the various isolated autonomous protestant churches? Is the spirit of truth responsible for this doctrinal division or, are the teachers of these man-made churches responsible?

That’s simple. There have been and always will be conflicting positions in the CC but once the CC convokes as a congressional body and defines an ambivalent piece of doctrine, the matter is settled. For example, Aquinas acquiesced regarding the official teaching of the CC regarding our blessed mother Mary.

This sort of thing is impossible for sola scriptura advocates in the protestant world.

Dave if they can err regarding the teachings of Christ, then your bible becomes suspect. Surely you can see the logic in that statement???

Via individual interpretation? There is difference between self- interpretation and personal divine revelation . Again, Jesus expects this discernment and hopes for this divine personal revelation .Behold he stands at the door and knocks…For the Father has revealed this to you ,not flesh and blood ( your intellect and your magisterium -sanhedrin ,saduccees ,pharisees etc.or tradition,nor scripture by itself). Jesus spoke to the masses expecting them to individually discern their own traditions and church (synagogues) teachings ,and whether they were in line with spirit and truth. Jesus was asking them to judge their rabbis Jesus was asking them to judge their traditions.Yes they were Jewish , God’s chosen, but they strayed from original intent of their constitution -Holy Scripture. It is divine revelation ,and of course to every individual who asks. Yes it is individual .Do you not individually believe ,in your Church ? We individually believe also ,in His divine revelation , and a church comes with to boot and a book too. Alleluia ! Yep, there are errors somewhere in all denominations-definitely man-mad errors…I understand your position of CC making an official call on previously ambivalent dogma .I have heard that said also , that if Jerome were alive today he would aquiesce (?) and not go against the Assumption , if that is what His beloved church taught. Hey .I think I heard that on Catholic Answers live radio. It could be true ,for some saints on some topics but so could the opposite be true ,some might stick to their views anyways.It can also go both ways .I believe Augustine also recanted on a position when he saw the the direction it was headed-that is his final position was not Catholic. As you say though ,no big official dogma was put forth yet on said topic…That is the whole debate .Is the Assumption or her Immaculateness taught by Christ .? … I see your point .If the Church gave you the bible , why would she err elsewhere.I guess i would just say scripture is promised to be perfect, but we disagree about a church being promised to be perfect.It’s a little bit like once saved always saved except for a denomination.I just see Revelations and the seven churches, where only one had no "error’ , and none were given a promise of perfection on this side of heaven , although they were admonished to be perfect ,as we all are individually.

 

[joe370]

Hey Dave…

I see your point .If the Church gave you the bible , why would she err elsewhere.I guess i would just say scripture is promised to be perfect,

Where is that stated in scripture? I believe that the word of God is inerrant but it needs an inerrant interpreter that can be trusted all of the time, and that interpreter is Jesus’ church teachers guided by the inerrant HS.

but we disagree about a church being promised to be perfect.

The members of the CC are all imperfect. However, scripture tells us that the holy spirit, the spirit of truth was sent to Jesus’ one church to guide her into all truth, not partial truth. until the end of time. Jesus’ imperfect church (teaching office) - can teach error free doctrine in the light of the fact that the HS is the divine guardian of the deposit; wouldn’t you agree with that scriptural logic? The HS was not sent to guide each and every individual into all truth - right? If He was then He is not guiding and teaching infallibly. Sure, you and I can discern truth most of the time, but not all of the time. We need to defer to Jesus’ church just as scripture says.

Got to catch some zzz’s…Have a good night Dave. Talk to you tomorrow maybe!

 

[KathleenGee]

The Jews did not have Bibles in their homes. The Scribes wrote books, authored by God, but the stories were passed down orally…Christ’s oral tradition was passed down by his apostles His teachings, the example they gave whose teacher was none other than Christ Himself, His life and ministry, or the insights they had gained from the Holy Spirit…I am paraphrasing our catechism here…through the living transmission of the Holy Spirit…not the actions of willful men wanting to erect a church of power to their making.

cc78: The Church, in her doctrine, life and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes…’ She is Christ’s bride…

cc81…Sacred Scripture is the speech of God…note not book of God…as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."

   ...And Tradition transmits its entirety the Word of G od which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.  It transmits it to the successors of the apostles, so that, enlightenment by the Spirit of Truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.'

cc82…Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored wtih equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.’

cc85…The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority ini this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.’

cc86…Yet this Magesterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it.

Christ said to the apostles…"He who hears you, hears me.’ And we sheep know our Master and He knows us…We recognize Christ in our shepherds. It is not about man, but Christ among us.

And as I alluded to before…cc89…There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure…

So when a pope makes an infallible statement…he is speaking in communion with the Holy Spirit in union with the bishops and the faithful…it resonates to the depth of our souls, and it is binding…not as a bondage…but in great depth of bond with Christ Himself…the author of true freedom.

 

[KathleenGee]

And Catholics relate to Scripture cc112…acknowledging 3 criteria…1. We listen to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture.

cc113…we read Scripture within ‘the living Tradition of the Whole Church…’…just listening to st. Jerome isn’t enough…the Spirit of the Church is universal and does not comprise of individual opinions or convictions. That is the mistake people often make…they will read one church father…and see his incompleteness…then compare him to another that is not speaking universally, and voila! They must be false…No, truth must be universal in union with the Holy Father, the Bishops and the faithful. It is the Holy Spirit that confirms and transmits the truths.

And finally, cc114, we are to be attentive to the analogy of faith…meaning the coherence of the truths of faiht among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation. I go to daily Mass, I hear the readings…and the implication, context, and application are there for me to live out in the life I am given…and the same is happening to others attending…we all having our own opinions and convictions…but we are working to bear the one fruit of Jesus Christ.

What I think you are doing David is projecting on to us that we are seeing ourselves as ‘saved’ by the Church.

The Church is a believing Church…

cc169…Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church (and to impose bondage instead of freedom in Christ is a contradiction)…rather than being our savior, the Church is our mother. (The Latins call the Holy Father not Pope, but Papa.) “We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and --not in-- the Church as if she were the author of our salvation”…Faustus of Riez…Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.

Finally, cc108, the Christian faith is not a ‘religion of the book’. Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, “not written and mute word, but incarnate and living.” If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “Open our minds to understand the Scriptures.”

And for us, the Gospels are the heart of Scripture because they give us life.

 

[KathleenGee]

Sorry fellas, to interject like this here…

The only perfection we can express as a Church our faith…and it is defined in the Nicene Creed. When we profess our faith in the Creed, we are expressing perfect faith.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Sorry fellas, to interject like this here…

The only perfection we can express as a Church our faith…and it is defined in the Nicene Creed. When we profess our faith in the Creed, we are expressing perfect faith.

Good point, whenever I’m asked what Catholics believe, I start with the Creed… “We believe in…”

 

[GaryTaylor]

If you take a look at the last time a Pope spoke ex Cathedra. It was 1950 and Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith.

Now you could debate wording and meaning of specific scripture of the Bible. And much is lost in translated wording. But when a Pope speaks ex Cathedra, thats by Action of the Holy Spirit.

And its very rare.

The Immaculate Conception was also placed in doctrine the same way in 1854 by Pope Pius IX. The solemn definition of Papal infallibility was released in 1870. Yet when Pope Piux IX spoke it was also in ex cathedra by definition.

Statements by a Pope that exercise papal infallibility are referred to as solemn papal definitions or ex cathedra teachings. These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an “Ecumenical Council”, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. For details on these other kinds of infallible teachings.

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church”

For a teaching by a Pope or Ecumenical Council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following:

1 a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as “We declare, decree and define…”), or
2 an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.
3 For example, in 1950, with “Munificentissimus Deus”, Pope Pius XII’s infallible definition regarding the Assumption of Mary, there are attached these words:

“Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith”.

The Gravity of this statement lingers, doesn’t it? And this is what I’m pointing out. I realize KathleenGee commented on this earlier. I just wanted to elaborate a bit.

God Bless, GT

 

[Jimmy_B]

If you take a look at the last time a Pope spoke ex Cathedra. It was 1950 and Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith.

Now you could debate wording and meaning of specific scripture of the Bible. And much is lost in translated wording. But when a Pope speaks ex Cathedra, thats by Action of the Holy Spirit.

And its very rare.

The Immaculate Conception was also placed in doctrine the same way in 1854 by Pope Pius IX. The solemn definition of Papal infallibility was released in 1870. Yet when Pope Piux IX spoke it was also in ex cathedra by definition.

Statements by a Pope that exercise papal infallibility are referred to as solemn papal definitions or ex cathedra teachings. These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an “Ecumenical Council”, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. For details on these other kinds of infallible teachings.

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church”

For a teaching by a Pope or Ecumenical Council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following:

1 a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as “We declare, decree and define…”), or
2 an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.
3 For example, in 1950, with “Munificentissimus Deus”, Pope Pius XII’s infallible definition regarding the Assumption of Mary, there are attached these words:

“Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith”.

The Gravity of this statement lingers, doesn’t it? And this is what I’m pointing out. I realize KathleenGee commented on this earlier. I just wanted to elaborate a bit.

God Bless, GT

Excellent post Gary!

 

[Jimmy_B]

I started this thread because, for some reason this is a tough one, a belief in the Assumption of Mary and it really shouldn’t be. If we as Christians understand the authority of the Church and how the Holy Spirit guides the Church and we are willing to accept other articles of faith, this issue should not divide us but rather unite us, in appreciation of the many miracles in Christ. It makes feel good to know that Jesus would do this for His mother… what a beautiful expression of love. We have hope and believe that Jesus loves us enough that we will be taken to heaven, when we die but some don’t believe that He would do this for His own mother. All one needs to know to understand this belief, is to understand that God is love.
Your Thoughts

 

[rinnie]

Whether one uses the phrase “full of grace”, or “highly favored”, speaking only for me, there is an implication that, while a daughter of Adam, the Blessed Virgin was truly protected from sin (not of her own doing, but by Grace), and scripture, again doesn’t dispute that. Without a scriptural dispute, I see no reason not to accept the historic teaching of the undivided Church.

But that’s me.
Jon

Here is some additional scripture also Jon that may help to show you that she was indeed sinless. All generations will call me Blessed. Now if she had sin that could not happen. Blessed means to make holy.

 

[KathleenGee]

Folks here have shown a good number of posts referring to the glorified state…and the fact that these dogmas are spiritual insights witnessing the faith of believers…here to just about 2,000 years…much study and reflection.

Mary is best understood by studying Catholic spirituality of perfection. Perfection is union with God…three stages…purgation, illuminative, and unitive. A person can have all 3 depending on what is still being purged, what is being illumined, and what is united with God.

But the last step, to be united with God…totally, is very hard…and it does not come through our willing it. We must continue to be purged totally of self, the ego, pride…It is God, just like He was the one who created Mary sinless-- she did not will it in herself – that it is God who then gives us the grace to become totally united to Him…

And many times those in this life who are once united with God, usually are taken in death shortly after to be united with the Lord in heaven. It is a very deep, deep process.

The Church has seen consistent, but different takes by spiritual scholars on the spiritual walk. And in time, these studies reflected back to Mary.

We are coming to the end of the Age of Mary, and she will be the great sign in the sky who, with her heel, will crush the head of the serpent.

 

[rinnie]

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.

I don’t have to provide you with the scripture you did it for me. Where did I ever say that Mary did not need a Savior. I never said that. I said Mary was saved from original sin at the moment of her conception. Now if she was SAVED at the moment of her conception would she not need to be saved by someone. Of Course!! She was saved by God. This is called the Immaculate Conception.

I said that when she was redeemed by Christ her redemption was unique. Christ did not take away Mary’s sin’s because she had none. It was by his redemptive Mercy he kept her from incurring sin.

She was kept from sin not only because she was to be the Mother of Jesus but also because it made her more suited to share with the great love in all the redemptive work of her Son.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I started this thread because, for some reason this is a tough one, a belief in the Assumption of Mary and it really shouldn’t be. If we as Christians understand the authority of the Church and how the Holy Spirit guides the Church and we are willing to accept other articles of faith, this issue should not divide us but rather unite us, in appreciation of the many miracles in Christ. It makes feel good to know that Jesus would do this for His mother… what a beautiful expression of love. We have hope and believe that Jesus loves us enough that we will be taken to heaven, when we die but some don’t believe that He would do this for His own mother. All one needs to know to understand this belief, is to understand that God is love.
Your Thoughts

It shouldn’t be a tough one because it can be Biblically demonstrated that it is very possible that God can receive humans into heaven body and soul, i.e. Enoch and Elijah.

Therefore the idea of “bodily assumption” is in fact biblical. Their objection it seems-and I could be very wrong, I’m just basing it on thegeneral attitude that I encounter when discussing the issue-is partially and psychologicaly based on jealousy, i.e. “what did she do to deserve it?”

All professed Christians should rejoice in this doctrine because in her Assumption into heaven as well as her heavenly coronation lies the fulfillment of what God has promised for ALL of us that He has elected. We should all rejoice in her, not be skeptical.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

In the Christian East, it was always believed from the very beginning that the Mother of God was taken, body and soul, to heaven. And this long before the Catholic dogma of the Assumption was proclaimed.

This is clearly stated in the liturgical prayers of the East and the feast of the Dormition or “Falling Asleep” of the Most Holy Virgin was a very early one and was called “Ladymas” in England (and one which the Lutheran tradition subscribed to, without making it a dogma).

This is part of Tradition and refers to the direct experience of the Apostles who attended our Lady at the end of her life. A deuterocanonical book that discusses our Lady’s Dormition and Assumption into heaven is still extant.

But one needs to be a member of the Church that has always believed and honoured our Lady’s Assumption to believe this (or at least a Lutheran).

Alex