Assumption of st. Mary

[rinnie]

I

If you are trying to support something biblically should you not use the Bible to support your argument and not catholic writings.

Why would a Catholic need to state something biblical only from the bible? We do not believe as we have STRESSED through this whole post we do not go by scripture alone. The bible tells us not to!

We believe as scripture tells us that we are to go by the teaching’s of the Church. Where in the bible does it state to only go by what is written?

Jesus said you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my CHURCH. The Church is the living teacher, the living Christ. The CHURCH is the pilar of all truth. Not the bible!

 

[vulcano37214]

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

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

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

Yours in Christ

Sam

 

[Nicea325]

Hey freedomwriter, you totally ignore my post on Genesis and Ephesians (enmity) - and, instead, change the subject. Your pen name is quite apropos for you are quite liberal in your methods.

And we all agree that scripture is god breathed and useful… “'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…”

Everyone here has asked you politely, to reveal to us where scripture says: the bible alone is sufficient…nothing else is needed, yet you just ignore us. That doesn’t seem like an open and honest exchange does it?

Everything you write is off topic, counter biblical and cavalierly unresponsive. How are we to have an honest debate under those circumstances my friend?

So, you left Jesus’ established church because you refused to stand firm and hold to the teachings the CC, (founded by Jesus) - passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter…because you refused to hold firmly to the traditions delivered to you by Jesus’ church? Phew…

Like Nicea said: 2 Tim 3:16-17 was never written to support Sola Scriptura, a false and bogus doctrine you have bought into. Freedom, why is that?

You quote Matthew regarding the Jews and utterly ignore Paul regarding **Jesus’ one church. **Freedom, debunking the false traditions of the Jews has nothing to do with the traditions safeguarded by the Holy Spirit, in Jesus’ church as per sacred scripture:

Traditions of the Jews to which Jesus was referring:

Matthew 15 - Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!"3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’* 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he is not to ‘honor his father[c]’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition

---

Traditions of Jesus’ one church of which the bible speaks:

*1 Corinthians 11:2 - Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thess. 3 - So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
*

What does one have to do with the other? What does Matthew 15 have to do with 1 Cor. or 2 Thess. - apostolic tradition safeguarded by the ever presence of the HS in Jesus’ church? You are losing me man.

**

So the Jewish leaders didn’t correctly interpret the OT, so what? What does that have to do with anything, especially the church founded by God, forever guided by the HS into all truth, be it word or letter? Jesus’ church knows the scriptures for the HS, the power of God is forever guiding Jesus’ church. If the CC doesn’t know “the scriptures” then who or what church does?

Freedom, you appeal to scripture again and again as your one and only authority via your supposed infallible interpretation, to discredit the very church founded by God that gave the canon of scripture to you in the first place. Again, you’re losing me man???

Just in case you overlooked it:

Show me where Jesus taught the BIBLE-ALONE is SUFFICIENT for salvation?

Notice freedomwriter has yet to answer the question:

Show me where Jesus taught the BIBLE-ALONE is SUFFICIENT for salvation?

 

[Rocky]

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

Yours in Christ

Sam

Hebrews 4:15 is written about Jesus as High Priest. Yes, I firmly believe that Christ is the Son of God and that although He was tempted, He is sinless. It is because of His offering the sacrifice of His Body and Blood that I and all who profess belief in Him and eat of His Body and drink of His Blood can “confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and favor and to find help in time of need.”

But just like there is nothing in the Bible that says faith alone will save anyone, I do not see where this says that Mary ever sinned.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon, My husband wears the medal every single day. My Son wears it also. My husband got the medal the day he was told he had cancer. He wore it to every treatment and wears it to this day. He lost all of his hair, he lost alot of weight but never lost that medal

He has since given it to many many non-catholics. They wear it every single day. One lady was told she had cancer, he gave her the medal, and when she went back her cancer was gone She is still in awe The Doctor does not understand either!! But of course we are not surprised

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

Jon

 

[freedomwriter]

Notice freedomwriter has yet to answer the question:

Show me where Jesus taught the BIBLE-ALONE is SUFFICIENT for salvation?

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

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

 

[John_oxios]

John,

I have just a minute to respond.

Yes, there is a precedent and certainly it’s possible. I think I stated as much in one of my earlier posts.

I suppose their are two issues I have w/ Catholic apologetics and the assumption:
a.) While there may be support for the doctrine in tradition, I don’t see any support for the assumption in scripture. If I were Catholic, given the belief of sacred tradition and inspired scripture, I don’t think this would particularly bother me. I don’t understand the insistence of some Catholics to try to justify this doctrine using scripture. If I were Catholic I think I would do as you and Joe have done.

b.) I don’t understand the church’s insistence on this (the assumption) being made part of your doctrine. If I understand Catholic theology correctly, willingly denying the bodily assumption of Mary would be a mortal sin.

That’s all I have time for tonight.

Have a good night and a good day at work/school/vacation or whatever you do tomorrow.

Simple the Bible is about the coming of Christ… and then Christ coming, The N.T. and His establishment of the Church till His return.

Cover to Cover Christ, not everything else he said could be written let alone the entire history of the Church. Mary’s assumption is an Apostolic teaching, celebrated in the second century as such. We didn’t make it up, like some Protestants say today… sola scriptura can and does rule out, the Trinity, any teaching council against heresies, any revelation or guidance by of the Holy Spirit,
After Acts, written in 85 a.d.
All I know is why would I believe the Catholic church would lie about that?
There is no reason, the Church cannot elevate Mary any Higher than God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit already have. Amen

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

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

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

And the Bible is not sufficient on its own, so says

The KJV:

1Ti 3:14 ¶ These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

(*not the Bible alone!! But the Church! Doesn’t even mention scripture here!
*)

Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Not the Bible but his holy apostles and prophets by His Spirit!

Paul writes,

Eph 3:8-12 "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

**And to make all [men] see **what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

**To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly [places] **might be known by the church** the manifold wisdom of God,**

 	**According to the eternal purpose **which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Eph 3:12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him

Not the Bible but through His Church! Not the Bible alone… in fact you can’t say Bible alone without adding to scripture. Luther did it, in his German Bible in Romans 1:17

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. {Alone)

not hyphenated, not italicized, but added directly into scripture.

right there the very teacher and principle of ‘Sola Scriptura’ added to scripture, making him a false teacher!!

As far as Mary’s Assumption? It is depicted at Luther’s tomb, He loved and revered Mary. Luther believed it, why not you!
God bless,
John

 

[joe370]

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

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

Freedom, evidently you don’t want to respond to my posts and that’s cool. It’s been my experience that most non-Catholics ignore my queries so I am use to it. I am of the mind that you can believe what ever you want; I simply want to reconcile our differences using the bible as our means for accomplishing that little task, and I don’t think we are going to be able to achieve that task, which means either you are wrong or I am wrong. After all we both know that sacred scripture is NOT wrong - right??? **Could you please share with me those scriptural passages stating that the BIBLE-ALONE is SUFFICIENT for salvation. I was kind of busy this week and could have overlooked them - thanks? **

When you said:* “You will have to tell him one day that you didn’t believe that his word was not sufficient for salvation,” *were you being facetious? Catholics believe what the bible says; it’s just that most sola scriptura advocates (in the protestant world) - have a different interpretation regarding certain teachings found in the bible, some of which deal with everlasting life (John 6) - For example, you believe one thing and I believe another thing; show me how the bible as our final authority can resolve our differences, and help us to merge, doctrinally speaking? If it can’t then SS doesn’t work.

Let’s say you can use scripture to prove that the BIBLE-ALONE is SUFFICIENT for salvation *(by the way, I thought Jesus alone was/is sufficient for salvation) *- why do you appeal to the authority of sacred scripture to discredit the authority of the very church that gave you the authoritative word of God? That makes no sense to me.

 

[SemperReformada]

Semper, if it’s true then why not teach it? Of course, the CC does not state that we must believe in the AOM to be saved. We are redeemed/saved, according to the CC, by the blood of the Lamb, Jesus the Christ, only,

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

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

but you still believe that SS as the Christians final authority, is necessary doctrine, even though that teaching is nowhere found in the holy bible. Why do non-Catholics insist on this (SS) - being made part of their doctrine?

Our conversation is not about sola scriptura nor do I believe that it is a necessary doctrine although I do believe it to be a true doctrine.

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

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

That seems like a fair statement.

Isn’t that what I said? If you willfully deny or call into doubt that which has been defined (in this case the assumption of Mary) know that you have fallen away completely from the Catholic faith.

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

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

You have a good day tomorrow as well my friend.

Thanks…it was a good day still healthy, still employed.

 

[SemperReformada]

If you feel it is not in scripture who do you think that the women is in Rev. 12:1? And how did she get there? And is that not proof that she is there? Body and Soul!!

IF that women is not the Blessed Mother and that is not proof what is? It is proof that the Israel of Old gave birth to the Messiah and then became the New Israel (the Church, The living Christ of today). Which suffers to this day great persecution by the dragon (devil).

Rinnie,

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

 

[david_ruiz]

Hey Dave…you said in response to my question:

Agreed, with the exception that these P churches claim that the holy bible is the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal conflicts, which begs the question: why are these pastors teaching their flock? They should simply tell them to defer to their bibles as opposed to the pastor from the pulpit.

ese").

Dave, do you believe that the HS is forever guiding Jesus’ established church **into all truth? That’s what the bible tells us.
**

If the CC is not the church founded by God on Pentecost in Jerusalem circa AD 33 then that would be a claim that the CC could not back up -agreed? But, if the CC is…then the HS is guiding the CC into all truth.

Your point being is that the bible via individual interpretation is the Christians final authority as opposed to any church leadership teaching authoritatively?

Sola scriptura is a man-made tradition embraced by all PC’s and the very reason why there is so much division in the protestant world.

How do you know that the bible is the pure word of God, untainted and unaltered by the CC that supposedly gave us altered, tainted and spurious tradition? Prove to me that the CC didn’t add impurities to the word of God (written tradition) - considering the fact that they supposedly added impurities elsewhere eg oral tradition. You can’t have it both ways Dave.

The CC is apostolic if the CC can trace her origin all the way back to the apostles, and the CC can. Protestants reject the importance of this little fact for the simple fact that they can only trace their lineage back to the reformation, at best.

been trying to answer but sight won,t take itsays i have logged on since last page

 

[david_ruiz]

been trying to answer but sight won,t take itsays i have logged on since last page

i8s there a time limit have tried twice to answer all-just to lose it

 

[david_ruiz]

Its funny how Jesus spent so much time debunking the false traditions of the Jews.
Jesus said on one occasion Matt 22:29 “You do err, not knowing the scriptures.”
15:3 "why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your traditions?..
You have nullified the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
On Sola Scriptura: In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 scripture states that it is “inspired” and “competent” for a believer to be “equipped for every good work”. If the bible alone is sufficient to do this, then nothing else is needed. There is a more that i can write but it would take a lot of time.
This is one of the reasons why i left the catholic church 11yrs ago. The traditions over the Word of God and We were never taught about salvation. I just have a heart to help catholics understand Gods Word.

Alleluia. Catholics might misconstrue Solo Ecriptura .It coexists with everything apostolic : It coexists with "Church .It coexists with magisteium /teachers and prophets .It coexists with elders and bishops .We ARE the Body of Christ .SE does not do away with any of the “parts”.CC will not be happy until all points are capitulated .Othodox and Lutheran are very close to Catholicism as a fuctioning “church”. All of their scriptures do not do away with the role and importance of scripture in the church.

 

[beehumble]

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

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

But what Protestants are failing to take into account in the bolded part of your statement above, is that HE IS THE WORD, according to the beginning of the Gospel of John. The Word became flesh- and the prophecy that “all will be taught from the mouth of God”. It is you, by ignoring what He said and made sure by sending the Holy Spirit would get handed down in all its Truth, who are saying His Word - his oral teachings - are not sufficient or believable. Jesus did not use a book or the New Testament - HE IS THE BOOK. So what He told Peter, James, John and the other chosen twelve, which is the Tradition, the Teaching, that was handed down to this day protected in Truth by the one He sent - the Holy Spirit - is just as much the Word as whatever is in the Scripture. By ignoring the oral part of what Jesus said, and it says it in the written part of the Word *to not ignore the oral part *but to pass on both the oral (from the Word, that is, from Jesus) and the written, it is the Protestants who are the ones that are truncating and therefore misunderstanding the fullness of the faith that was handed to mankind from the WORD, both orally from the mouth of God on earth, and the written part of it. Jesus IS the Word. Everything He said and did was not written down, so what is written down is not the complete Word of God. When the written is combined with the orally handed down practices, then we get a more complete Word of God. Again, the written part even says to hold fast to both the oral (from Jesus the Word) and the written and to hand them BOTH down.

Jesus IS the Word. Protestants seem confused and think the Word only applies to the written Scriptures, just like the way you used it above in the bolded part. It most assuredly does not. John said as much when he said the Word was with God and the Word is God, and the Word became flesh.

God bless you.

 

[david_ruiz]

First of all, Jesus was not condemning all traditions,so you are wrong. 2 Tim 3:16-17 was never written to support Sola Scriptura, a false and bogus doctrine you have bought.

BTW: Show me where Jesus taught the BIBLE-ALONE is SUFFICIENT for salvation?

You left the CC because you were to ignorant and lazy to learn the faith.

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

 

[Nicea325]

Alleluia. Catholics might misconstrue Solo Ecriptura .It coexists with everything apostolic : It coexists with "Church .It coexists with magisteium /teachers and prophets .It coexists with elders and bishops .We ARE the Body of Christ .SE does not do away with any of the “parts”.CC will not be happy until all points are capitulated .Othodox and Lutheran are very close to Catholicism as a fuctioning “church”. All of their scriptures do not do away with the role and importance of scripture in the church.

And many Protestants also skew SS among themselves or else there would not be thousands of different denominations.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Anyways ,timothy may have stated enough for us all.He did not need to add "final authority ".

…You do know Paul and not Timothy write 2 Timothy right?

** Paul**, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise of the life which is in Christ Jesus, To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 2 Tim. 1:1-2

It mat have been understood ,for there certainly was no rival yet. That is tradition and an institutional church had not fully developed yet for him to need to clarify

Had the Christian Scriptures been “fully developed”?

Timothy held scripture as authoratative

As do Catholics… Again Paul wrote 2 Tim.

Otherwise Timothy could not have said “All” in “All scripture is…”( He did not say “Some” as CC doctrine implies.

And strike three. Paul wrote 2 Tim not Timothy. Anyways please substantiate your claim that the CC teaches that “some” of the Scriptures are authoritative.

God bless

 

[david_ruiz]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

But here is the problem. The CC does indeed claim to be led by the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into the fullness of the truth! Agreed! But tell me this, why is it then the CC has all of the same truth, and the P Church’s make the same claim but every P Church has a different truth? There can only be ONE truth, and every P Church has a different truth. The CC has and always has had the same truth. Why would the Holy Spriit lead us to different truths? It can’t! So why is it when I go to other Church’s except for the CC there are different truths?

first of all most denominations believe in one of your first creeds-Apostles or Nicene(?) That creed is VERY<VERY scriptural. The division perhaps started when following creeds etc became less scriptural …One must also compare apples to apples .CC is just one magisterium or denomination , very unified within itself. Southern Baptists is another denomination/magisterium, very unified within itself. Greek Orthodoxy is another ,very unified within. Within any denomination , you can travel the world and feel right at home within that denomination, having the same truths in Boston as you do Melbourne. Right ? …That is a big generalization ,that CC has been the same for 2ooo years .In areas such as baptism, limbo ,Marionism,.it has not,generally speaking

 

[Nicea325]

wo getting testy ,but it’s cool. Reliance on tradition , per CC, makes Timothy a liar.for indeed scripture is NOT profitable without the CC Indeed CC says you need tradition and church to understand some of scripture .This si contrary to Timothy .It is also contrary to St. Augustine who said scripture was available to ALL men and Easy to understand and certainly listed no rival in it’s authority .

No offense,but your rebuttal is riddled with errors. First of all, the early Christians were big oral speakers and what was the means long before anything was penned? Oral Traditions… Scripture is merely oral TRADITIONS penned and intepretated from the early church Tradition. Problem is that you as a Protestant pit scripture against Tradition and that is false. By all way, St.Augustine NEVER once stated scripture is the FINAL or the ONLY authority,so please do not pervert his works. Not one Protestant has given me one of his great works where he advocates or defends Sola Scriptura. Provide his exhaustive work(s) where St.Augustine defends Sola Scriptura?

He felt that was part of being Catholic ,the church he loved.It is so authoratative he admitted Mary’s immaculateness was against scripture (in that “all have sinned”) .Augustine still accepted the dogma however -strange.but perhaps harmless,in his day .Could he foresee that it would be required dogma along with her Assumption ? Would he have objected ?..Anyways ,timothy may have stated enough for us all.He did not need to add "final authority ".It mat have been understood ,for there certainly was no rival yet. That is tradition and an institutional church had not fully developed yet for him to need to clarify .He certainly did not say tradition or a church magisterium shall interpret for you and tell you how scripture is instructive and corrective etc.Indeed , Timothy held scripture as authoratative amidst apostles ,teachers ,elders ,bishops , traditions that you had in his day. Indeed , all the latter were subject to be true to scripture ,in truth and in spirit. Otherwise Timothy could not have said “All” in “All scripture is…”( He did not say “Some” as CC doctrine implies.

Again you are dead wrong on St.Augustine and it is classic case of another misguided Protestant merely taking Augustines words out-of-context. By the way…2 Tim 3:16 reads: **ALL **scripture is…NOT ONLY Scripture is