Assumption of st. Mary

[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 do not see in Ephesians 1:6 where it states we are highly favored by God as the Blessed Mother was. It says his free gift to us in the Beloved in whom through his blood we gain freedom. (where does that say we are highly favored by God like the Blessed Mother?

That scripture just says that everything comes from God and everything should lead to him.

I never said that the devil gave his life to Christ. You stated quote: as believers in Christ we are all justified in his eyes. unquote. I said that is not true. You need to show me in scripture that all we have to do is believe in Christ and then we are all justified. I just stated that this is not true. Do you disagree that the devil believed in Christ? He knew he existed. Where did the devil ever question his belief in God? I said to believe in him is not enough as you stated. To be justified in Christ you must not only believe in him you must do his work. Faith without good works is fruitless!!

 

[rinnie]

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

I agree with you. The Church has always taught that the Blessed Mother was taken to heaven body and soul. The only thing that was never said is rather she was dead, or fallen asleep in Christ. To the best of my knowledge both are accepted.

 

[KathleenGee]

Affirm this comment as well…and in that part of the world, it would be a stronger witness to the life of Mary, considering she was at Ephesus.

I read a passage here on CAF about some comment of her passing…a tradition, do not know how authentic it is…but said something ‘shocking’ happened at her passing and nothing else was explained…kept in mystery…

But yes, Rinnie, agree…Scripture says actually alot in context to having glorified bodies some day…

 

[rinnie]

Affirm this comment as well…and in that part of the world, it would be a stronger witness to the life of Mary, considering she was at Ephesus.

I read a passage here on CAF about some comment of her passing…a tradition, do not know how authentic it is…but said something ‘shocking’ happened at her passing and nothing else was explained…kept in mystery…

But yes, Rinnie, agree…Scripture says actually alot in context to having glorified bodies some day…

And if you think about it we do have actual scripture to vertify this. As it is also fitting THE BODY which was sanctified to bear God incarnate would see no corruption Rev 12:1

Mary is the ark of the covenant. She was the ark which contained the living word. Now the ark can see no corruption. So Mary’s body could not see corruption. I believe that one of the Apostles saw her ASSUMED into heaven, he thought it was a dream. I always screw up and forget to say assumed, because she did need Jesus to come and get her.

But the point is, that is proof that she indeed was assumed into heaven because it is written in the book of Rev that she was standing on the moon. Thats what my Dad always told me. And the twelve stars were the Apostles. Now if she was seen standing on the moon that is scriptural proof that she was indeed assumed into heaven body and soul!

And now all we have to do is wait for Jesus to come again in glory. The Church is the bride of the Messiah. That is why we sing praises Marana tha. Oh Lord Come. We are longing for the second comming. That is why the CC is the Living Christ in the Living Spirit. The Power of the Holy Spirit is his intimate presence with us.

 

[KathleenGee]

Rinnie, your dad’s comments…thanks, never heard that before…great point from Sacred Scripture…

 

[KathleenGee]

I also studied ancient Aztec religion…the moon god of death and darkness demanding human sacrifice so the sun could return the next day…

Wonder if the moon represents false gods…

St. Thomas Aquinas said our understanding of God can be compared to an eye of an owl next to the sun…the owl’s eye only works in darkness and cannot perceive the Light

 

[John_oxios]

Luke 1:46 where Mary herself states:
“My spirit rejoices in God my savior”

Her reference here to God as here savior implies that she too was a sinner, just as the Bible tells us in…

Romans 3:10
“There is none righteous, no not one.”

Mark 10:18 where Jesus said:
"No one is good except God alone.”

Or there is the passage in Luke 2:22-24 where Mary presents an offering to the Jewish priest for her sinful condition (cross reference that with Leviticus 12). That would not have been necessary if she had been sinless.

Hello freedomwriter,

Rom 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

How much more so Mary? Who shared the same heart , whom she carried and nourished.
Mary is made righteous by Christ’s death on the Cross, God is eternal and ‘out’ of time as we know it. Mary is preserved from from falling into the pool, because of Christ Sacrifice. While we all have to be lifted out of the pool by Christ.

Who says Mary knew she was sinless?  She offered up the offering as any pious Jewish woman would have.  No one said she was above the Law.

Christ though He knew was sinless, still observed Jewish ritual, whether they were right or wrong, He remained a pious Jew.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

My understanding has been that Mary was chosen by the Father to give birth to Jesus, but other than that she was just a human being, with the same sin nature and everyone else (except Jesus of course). Protestants generally believe that she had children after Jesus and that she died, as any other person.

Hi biblically you can’t prove or disprove Mary did not have other children.
Protestants like to use

Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

This doesn’t mean anything after? remember scripture is about Christ and His Church, The point is the Apostle is stressing Jesus was Born of a Virgin.

2Samuel 6:23:
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

Does this mean Michal had children After her death? Certainly not!

The Hebrews had no formal name for cousin,or extended family… they were brethren of a covenant, brethren of a nation, and brethren in community, and whomever they shared a meal with became their brethren.
David addresses His army as Brethren, Abraham calls his nephew Lot, his brethren. and so …on and so…on…

God bless,
john

 

[John_oxios]

That there are no protestant documents in the 3rd century proves to me there was no Roman Catholic church then either. Many historians even catholic ,believe that when Rome asserted herself over the other patriarchs ,it solidified division. "…The bible is a Catholic book ??? I understand your position. My position is that it is God’s Holy Word. Indeed , where is “Holy Roman Catholic” in the bible ? Thankfully you do not see Lutheranism or Calvinism or Orthodoxy in there either. Alleluia ,we are not worldly (need of a king-earthly ruler), nor do we boast that we are of Peter or of Paul.

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

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

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

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

God bless,
John

 

[Rightlydivide]

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

God bless,
John

Paul is only mentioned 29 times? Are you sure?

 

[John_oxios]

Paul is only mentioned 29 times? Are you sure?

opps my bad, Paul is mentioned about 130 times, then the others collectively as the twelve or the apostles.

Thanks for the crorection

John

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;6993523]Hey Jon…
But not infallible (error free)???
The first seven ecumenical councils are as error free as any human documents can be, in my opinion. I personally would be willing to accept a council, truly ecumenical, accepted by east and west, were it to happen today.

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?

As close to error free as humans can be. So, talking again about the Assumption, yes. This, of course, disputes the pope’s ability to declare ex cathedra.

Jon

 

[freedomwriter]

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.

Being “full of grace” at the annunciation in no way proves sinlessness during her entire life.
The Latin Vulgate is correctecd by the modern Catholic Bible NAB which translates it simply “favored one.” Second the salutation of the angel is only a reference to her state at that moment not to her entire life. It doesn’t mean that she was always and would always be full of grace but only that she was at that time. The grace she received was for the task of being the mother of the Messiah not to prevent her from any sin. Even Catholic scholars admit that Mary was in need of redemption. Why if she was not a sinner? Ott says that Mary required redemption. It is biblically unfounded to suggest that she was prevented from inheriting sins rather that being delivered from it.

 

[Rightlydivide]

opps my bad, Paul is mentioned about 130 times, then the others collectively as the twelve or the apostles.

Thanks for the crorection

John

blueletterbible.org/

I got a lot more than that and when you add his other name its almost the same

 

[freedomwriter]

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.

Read 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and then ask yourself “were the scriptures alone sufficient in providing Timothy what he needed to know to be saved”.

If the scriptures alone were sufficient for Timothy, then aren’t the scriptures alone sufficient for us?"

 

[Rocky]

Read 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and then ask yourself “were the scriptures alone sufficient in providing Timothy what he needed to know to be saved”.

If the scriptures alone were sufficient for Timothy, then aren’t the scriptures alone sufficient for us?"

Where does it say in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 that the scriptures alone [are] sufficient? I do not see the words “alone” or “sufficient”. I only see the word “useful”. And also what “scriptures” is Paul talking about? Not the New Testament as that for the most part is yet to be written and canonized. So it must be the Hebrew Scriptures, which I do agree with Paul are “useful for teaching, for reproof, correction and training in holiness so that the man of God may be fully competent and equipped for every good deed.”

 

[rinnie]

Being “full of grace” at the annunciation in no way proves sinlessness during her entire life.
The Latin Vulgate is correctecd by the modern Catholic Bible NAB which translates it simply “favored one.” Second the salutation of the angel is only a reference to her state at that moment not to her entire life. It doesn’t mean that she was always and would always be full of grace but only that she was at that time. The grace she received was for the task of being the mother of the Messiah not to prevent her from any sin. Even Catholic scholars admit that Mary was in need of redemption. Why if she was not a sinner? Ott says that Mary required redemption. It is biblically unfounded to suggest that she was prevented from inheriting sins rather that being delivered from it.

Well because thats a no brainer there freedomwriter. We all come from Eve. By her sin we all received original sin. Because what do you think the Blessed Mother was saved from at the second of her conception actual sin? That would be quite impossible would you not agree? You cannot sin until you reach the age of reason for goodness sakes.

So you are saying that when God saved the Blessed Mother from sin it was only until she had Jesus? Tell me this, she is full of grace. How can you be filled with grace and then have any room for sin? That is not possible.

If the Blessed Mother was not saved from sin by God then Jesus would have also been born into original sin the same as she was by her Mother. But because she was saved at the moment of her conception she had no sin. She was saved from it for her to give birth to Jesus.

If it is biblically unfounded that the Blessed Mother was saved from sin at the moment of her conception then how was she full of grace? How can you deny the grace given to Mary at the moment of her conception and not agree tha she could and was tranformed by God’s Saving Grace. Why does that seem impossible to you?

Also what is the difference if the Greek translation is full of grace and the more recent versions states highly favored daughter of God. It means the same. But lets look at the phrase shall we.

The angel Gabriel said Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you! Get it? With you The Greek translation the traditional translation is better then the many recent versions. Mary is indeed highly favored by God but the Greek implies more than that. (and it never mentions the word for daughter). The Greek word for full of grace is kecharitomene which means to fill or endow with grace. Since this term is in the present tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, If is extended over her entire life from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

As I said she was subject to the necessity of original sin also. But by a special intervention of God undertaken the second of her conception she was perserved from the stain of original sin and its consequence. She is redeemed by the grace of Christ but in a special way!! By anticipation!! By being saved by Christ she was able to become mired in Original sin and its stain.

The second Vatican Council states she was redeemed in a exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her son.

You claim there is no scripture on the possibility of a bodily assumption. Sorry but there is. Check it out. Matt 27: 52-53. The tombs also were opened and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised and comming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many! Did these OT saints have to die and be buried all over again? IF so why is it not written. The early Church writers say that they were assumed into heaven or at least into the temporary state of rest and happiness often callled paradise, where they awaited until Christs resurrection after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

Also where are her remains? It is agreed that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem or Ephesus. But neither of those citys or any other claimed her remains. Why Not???

Bottom line scripture states Matt 28:18-20 Luke 10:16 1 Tim 3:15 If the Church teaches it, ITS TRUE!!

So your statement of the Angel stating she was in a state of grace only at that moment contradicts scripture!

 

[rinnie]

Where does it say in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 that the scriptures alone [are] sufficient? I do not see the words “alone” or “sufficient”. I only see the word “useful”. And also what “scriptures” is Paul talking about? Not the New Testament as that for the most part is yet to be written and canonized. So it must be the Hebrew Scriptures, which I do agree with Paul are “useful for teaching, for reproof, correction and training in holiness so that the man of God may be fully competent and equipped for every good deed.”

Amen to you brother. But scripture does state stay true to the teachings that were given to you either written or by WORD OF MOUTH!! Now by word of mouth would indeed mean Sacred Tradition, and written would indeed mean Sacred Scripture:thumbsup:

 

[joe370]

Hey freedom…

Originally Posted by freedomwriter View Post
Read 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and then ask yourself “were the scriptures alone sufficient in providing Timothy what he needed to know to be saved”.

If the scriptures alone were sufficient for Timothy, then aren’t the scriptures alone sufficient for us?"

OK, let’s read it: 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (New International Version)

*15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
*

Freedom, from his infancy Tim had the New Testament at his disposal?

Scripture alone was not sufficient for Tim. Scripture, according to the passage you quoted, from Tim’s infancy, was able to make him wise for salvation through faith in Jesus, and was useful to him for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. There is a big difference between being useful and and being sufficient.

As I mentioned already, all catholics agree with protestants that the holy Scriptures are able to make one wise for salvation through faith in Christ, and that all scripture (as opposed to ONLY scripture) - is god breathed and useful for teaching. From that you get: scripture alone is sufficient for all Christians? Why not just stick with what Paul said instead of adding to it?

Freedomwriter, again, show me in God’s word where God’s word explicitly or implicitly states that God’s authoritative word is the be all and end all, final authority for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness and ultimately for resolving doctrinal differences? Please provide some scripture passages to back up your argument.

If scripture alone is sufficient for teaching rebuking, training and correcting then please use scripture alone to correct the erroneous teachings of one of these churches:

In one corner we have some isolated autonomous churches, that defer to the bible as their final authority for doctrinal clarification and authoritative resolution, and they come away from the bible believing that Jesus was speaking in metaphor regarding the Eucharist. In the opposite corner we have some isolated autonomous churches as well, deferring to their bible as their final authority for doctrinal clarification and authoritative resolution and they too come away from the same bible believing the exact opposite.

Both defer to scripture alone as their all sufficient authoritative guide and both take away from the bible something different. Scripture alone as the Christians final authority doesn’t work. Who or what has the authority, outside the purview of sacred scripture to resolve this doctrinal dilemma???

Why was it necessary for Timothy to entrust doctrinal truth to reliable authoritative teachers if sacred scripture was/is the Christians final authority?

*2 Tim. 2 - You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men, who will also be qualified to teach others.
*

Why doesn’t the book of Hebrews tell us to obey and submit to the authority of the bible?

*Hebrews 13 - 17Obey 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. *

Nobody other than JonNC has attempted to address these questions. Looking forward to your response.

 

[david_ruiz]

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

Good post .thank-you .A few posts earlier we were discussing unity at the cost of freedom (Catholic) vs.freedom at the cost of unity(protestant) from a general historical view .Here is an example where one must believe a dogma or be fallen away from catholic faith.Not much wiggle room (freedom). Again ,many denominations have must believe in dogmas .It is just that you can fall away from one denomination over a dogma and join another and still be “Protestant”. Thanks again for neat info.