Can Mary be Sinless and Intercede for you?

[guanophore]

Should these writers who wrote these things be rebuked for doing so?

What is this need that you have for rebuking others over their private prayer life? Do people in your faith community rebuke one another because they don’t like how others prayers?

Are you asserting here that Mary’ was essential and necessary for Jesus to come into the world?

God chose to make her necessary. God chose to prepare her, and wait for her consent. Her role in salvation is the result of the sovereignity of God.

If Mary had said no there would be no way for Jesus to come?

No. God doesn’t have the ability to take no for an answer.

Honestly.

Here is what some Catholic scholars have said:

Scholars speculate. They do not determine the infallible faith taught by the Church. That is the duty of the Magesterium. Every time you try to discredit the Church by this means, it makes you look cheap.

The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’

It may seem to Ott as though this is the case, but it is not.

The bodily assumption of Mary is based on these apocryphal gospels which were condemned by the church as being false.

This is just an outright lie, and I will ask you again to refrain from posting it. Your posting of lies here does nothing to enhance discussion in matters of faith. You have been told repeatedly that the Assumption of Mary is based in Sacred Traditions that have come down to us from the Apostles. You have stated you don’t accept that, an that is your perogative,but please refrain from posting these lies.

 

[Good_Fella]

Here is what some Catholic scholars have said:

‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:
The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an **apocryphal transitus **B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).
The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150)."

The bodily assumption of Mary is based on these apocryphal gospels which were condemned by the church as being false.

It’s the other way around. These apocryphal gospels reflect a traditional belief in the Assumption of Mary that had existed since Apostolic times. An historian is also justified in dismissing the New Testament as an unreliable historical source of confirmation with regard to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

I’m curious. Why is it you fail to see the spiritual reasons for the Assumption of Mary into heaven? How is it you fail to fathom the love and honour Jesus has for his mother? Where in the scriptures is Jesus presented as a cold and indifferent person either towards others or the spirit of the Law? We Catholics believe that our Lord would never dismiss his Fourth Commandment by allowing his mother’s body, which conceived and bore Jesus, to lie corrupted somewhere in an unmarked grave. But Mary’s traditional tomb in the valley of Josaphat has been empty since Apostolic times.

PAX :coffeeread:

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4386169]
Originally Posted by justasking4 View Post
The bodily assumption of Mary is based on these apocryphal gospels which were condemned by the church as being false.

guanophore
This is just an outright lie, and I will ask you again to refrain from posting it. Your posting of lies here does nothing to enhance discussion in matters of faith. You have been told repeatedly that the Assumption of Mary is based in Sacred Traditions that have come down to us from the Apostles. You have stated you don’t accept that, an that is your perogative,but please refrain from posting these lies.

Did the Catholic condemn these apocryphal gospels as false?
Is it not true that Mary’s assumption is first mentioned in this false gospel?

---

 

[Gamera]

Did the Catholic condemn these apocryphal gospels as false?

No. Exclusion of a document from the canon of Scripture does not constitute a finding that the document is “false.”

Is it not true that Mary’s assumption is first mentioned in this false gospel?

No, it is not true.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Did the Catholic condemn these apocryphal gospels as false?

**JA4T1T, you are so bad! :bounce: If I didn’t know better I would think I wrote that stuff! You crack me up. :extrahappy: Poor guanophore is so sincere and sensitive and you play games. That isn’t nice.:tsktsk: Yea, it was funny but not nice! Did you notice poor AshleyBelle is arguring with “herself” for you! We don’t need you anymore we all got you figured out! Your job is done, you can leave now! Good luck! God Bless. **

Is it not true that Mary’s assumption is first mentioned in this false gospel?

**
Not sure what you are saying. Can you clarify? I can’t think of any teaching in the Scriptures where this is said. Do you have a reference? Would this be an example of Tradition in “action”?How does this apply ? How are we as individuals to apply this to ourselves? Are all gospels now false? Was the writing titled False Gospel of Mary? Your claim cannot be sustained by scripture for the mere fact they do not address the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’

“With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obsequiosum.” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.” – Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: DD Dr. Ludwig Ott **

 

[guanophore]

It’s the other way around. These apocryphal gospels reflect a traditional belief in the Assumption of Mary that had existed since Apostolic times. An historian is also justified in dismissing the New Testament as an unreliable historical source of confirmation with regard to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

I’m curious. Why is it you fail to see the spiritual reasons for the Assumption of Mary into heaven? How is it you fail to fathom the love and honour Jesus has for his mother? Where in the scriptures is Jesus presented as a cold and indifferent person either towards others or the spirit of the Law? We Catholics believe that our Lord would never dismiss his Fourth Commandment by allowing his mother’s body, which conceived and bore Jesus, to lie corrupted somewhere in an unmarked grave. But Mary’s traditional tomb in the valley of Josaphat has been empty since Apostolic times.

PAX :coffeeread:

Thanks for your post Good Fella. I have a thought about why this is:

Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden…" 1 Cor 2:6-7

Heb 5:14
14 But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

" Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and **they are unable **to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14

 

[guanophore]

Did the Catholic condemn these apocryphal gospels as false?

No. This question is leading, like asking “when did you stop beating your wife”.

These works were not included in the canon for various reasons, and they do contain errors. However, that does NOT mean that everything in them is false, or that they have no historical value. But, as with all your other repetitive questions, ja4, we have been around this bush before, have we not? NOthing has changed from the last 10 times you brought this question.

Is it not true that Mary’s assumption is first mentioned in this false gospel?

No, it is not. It had been present in the liturgical prayers from the first century. Your label “false gospel” is inappropriate. The fact that a historical work contains errors does not equate to everything in it being “false”. I know you are grasping at straws to try to disprove the Catholic Church. I underststand. I just think your time would be better spent taking some basic classes in logic and church history.

 

[Good_Fella]

Thanks for your post Good Fella. I have a thought about why this is:

Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden…" 1 Cor 2:6-7

Heb 5:14
14 But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

" Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and **they are unable **to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14

Thank you for these verses. I hope JA4 will examine them very carefully.

PAX :harp:

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for these verses. I hope JA4 will examine them very carefully.

PAX :harp:

I prayerfully hope the same, but the pattern is not to read what is given, and turn around and ask the questions all over again, so I am not going to get my expectations up too far.

 

[Peter_J]

justasking4,

Can you provide any evidence that the Church did condemn them as false?

 

[jmcrae]

Is it not true that Mary’s assumption is first mentioned in this false gospel?

No; rather, how it got into that gospel was that it was what all mainstream Christians at the time believed.

 

[GailMac]

O dear this thread is getting bumpy!

Luke 1: 26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. newadvent.org/bible/luk001.htm

Imagine that — the Queen of Heaven being greeted by an Archangel whose name is Gabriel…and the Word became flesh and dwells among us, thanks be to God! Yet knowing our needs before these events were recorded for us in the Scriptures asked this for us: 34 But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke1.htm

Wisdom asked for us poor children long before we needed the answer! And here is it, STILL! Thanks be to God!

Peace,

Gail

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Yes, Mary is sinless and thank God for her powerful intercession!

Whether or not you know it, Protestants, Muslims, and all other people, our Blessed Queen of Heaven and Earth is praying for you.

agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Mary%20the%20Ark%20of%20the%20New%20Covenant.htm

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;4390025]
It’s the other way around. These apocryphal gospels reflect a traditional belief in the Assumption of Mary that had existed since Apostolic times.
From my study of this these were second century documents that have no connection to the apostles. They are really fictional accounts of the early life of Jesus.

An historian is also justified in dismissing the New Testament as an unreliable historical source of confirmation with regard to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

How so? Take a look at I Cornthians 15:1-8 for the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection.

I’m curious. Why is it you fail to see the spiritual reasons for the Assumption of Mary into heaven? How is it you fail to fathom the love and honour Jesus has for his mother?

Jesus never exalts His mother to the status that the Catholic church has. I do understand how Catholics would think this way about her since it sounds so reasonable. The problem is that its not based on Scripture or history.

Where in the scriptures is Jesus presented as a cold and indifferent person either towards others or the spirit of the Law?

What does this have to do with Mary being sinless and able to intercede for you?

We Catholics believe that our Lord would never dismiss his Fourth Commandment by allowing his mother’s body, which conceived and bore Jesus, to lie corrupted somewhere in an unmarked grave. But Mary’s traditional tomb in the valley of Josaphat has been empty since Apostolic times.

Where does the fourth commandment state or imply that allowing a loved one’ body to decay in death a dismissal of the 4th commandment? There is nothing in the OT that makes this assertion.

PAX :coffeeread:

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;4392014]

Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore
Thanks for your post Good Fella. I have a thought about why this is:

Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden…" 1 Cor 2:6-7

Heb 5:14
14 But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

" Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14

Thank you for these verses. I hope JA4 will examine them very carefully.

i have examined them and i’m trying to understand what they have to do with the topic?

 

[justasking4]

Yes, Mary is sinless and thank God for her powerful intercession!

Whether or not you know it, Protestants, Muslims, and all other people, our Blessed Queen of Heaven and Earth is praying for you.

agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Mary%20the%20Ark%20of%20the%20New%20Covenant.htm

How do you know she is praying? How can you say you know what the nature of the afterlife is in this regards if it has never been revealed?

 

[justasking4]

justasking4,

Can you provide any evidence that the Church did condemn them as false?

Here is a quote from a section on these works from the Catholic Ency;

“Both Catholics and Gnostics were concerned in writing these fictions. The former had no other motive than that of a pious fraud, being sometimes moved by a real though misguided zeal, as witness the author of the Pseudo-Matthew: Amor Christi est cui satisfecimus. But the heretical apocryphists, while gratifying curiosity, composed spurious Gospels in order to trace backward their beliefs and peculiarities to Christ Himself. The Church and the Fathers were hostile even towards the narratives of orthodox authorship”

newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm#III1

If i’m not mistaken they were also condemned by Pope Gelasius and Pope Hormisdas.

 

[rinnie]

justasking4 Got a question. Just for you Love, just for you. Are you ready? Ready or not here it comes.

How can Mary be full of Grace and still be sinFull? Got that on another thread and it is awesome.

Can’t wait to hear your response. And I don’t think I need to show you where it says in the Bible that Mary is Full of Grace!

But if you could for me Love, show me where it says in the Bible that Mary the Mother of Christ is full of sins. Full of Grace is what my bible says.

Can’t wait to hear from you!

Why do you always ignore me? ja4 don’t you like me anymore. You never answer me. I guess im just the forgotten women.

 

[jmcrae]

How do you know she is praying? How can you say you know what the nature of the afterlife is in this regards if it has never been revealed?

What do you think is the subject of the Book of Revelation? Is it not the nature of the afterlife in Heaven and in Hell?

 

[justasking4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnie
justasking4 Got a question. Just for you Love, just for you. Are you ready? Ready or not here it comes.

How can Mary be full of Grace and still be sinFull? Got that on another thread and it is awesome.

Can’t wait to hear your response. And I don’t think I need to show you where it says in the Bible that Mary is Full of Grace!

But if you could for me Love, show me where it says in the Bible that Mary the Mother of Christ is full of sins. Full of Grace is what my bible says.

Can’t wait to hear from you!

Why do you always ignore me? ja4 don’t you like me anymore. You never answer me. I guess im just the forgotten women.

I’m not ignoring you. How could i not like you???
Lets look at the meaning of this phrase and if it truly does mean without sin. Here is what the phrase means in Greek:
"Full of grace
χαριτόω charitóō; contracted charitó̄, fut. charitó̄sō, from cháris (5485), grace. To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharitōménē, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitóō declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitóō is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace.

Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G5486). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers"

If you look carefully there is no mention or hint of being sinless. Also note that this is the same word used for believers in Ephesians 1:6.
Couple this with Romans 5:12 where all men including Mary were under the sentence of Adam since she to was concieved of 2 human parents.