CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[DaisyD]

This is officialy the best answer when YOU have none: “I woun’t tell you, do your own research!”
It’s kinda like: “I can fly but I woun’t show you because I don’t feel like flying right now.”

I have no desire to teach you the history of your own church.

 

[VociMike]

You should read the bible more.
If you want to grow read the Word.

The Word is a Person, Jesus Christ. Protestants who capitalize “Word” when referring to scripture need to remember that.

Anyway, I’m becoming less and less convinced that you are actually interested in serious discussion.

 

[Gamera]

Read 1corinthians, it describes saints as living people who do the will of the Father. 1Cor1:2.
Or go to your concordance and look up saints.
There are dozens of references talking about people who are living.
Church practice of making someone a saint after they have died and can prove three miracles has no biblical foundation.

No, Daisy, that isn’t correct at all. The Church doesn’t teach that a person must be dead to be a saint, nor does it claim that you must perform miracles to be a saint. The Bible tells us saints include every person in a state of grace — living or dead. The Catholic Church only CANONIZES those who have died because until someone has died, how do you know whether they will continue walking in the faith until death? But canonization is merely a public declaration that someone is ALREADY a saint. Plenty of saints (living and dead) are not CANONIZED saints. The Church doesn’t “define” a saint as a dead person nor as someone who has performed miracles. That’s ridiculous.

 

[Gamera]

I have no desire to teach you the history of your own church.

But you should learn the history of our church before you bad-mouth it, because God forbids you to bear false witness against your neighbor (Exodus 20:16). Sale of indulgences was a bad practice committed by individuals acting WITHOUT Church authority. The Church never authorized the sale of indulgences.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

You should read the bible more.
If you want to grow read the Word.

I’ve read enough of the bible to understand that the Catholic Church is first and formost God’s church on earth with the power of the holy spirt and the chair of St. Peter.

“What you loosen on earth, I will loosen in heaven. What you have bound on earth, I will bind in Heaven.” Matthew the verse excapes me.

 

[Gamera]

You should read the bible more.
If you want to grow read the Word.

Daisy, I’ve read the Bible cover to cover (have you?). My wife and I read one chapter together every night. I’ve also read the Catechism of the Catholic Church cover to cover. There is no conflict between the two. They are in full agreement.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Daisy, I’ve read the Bible cover to cover (have you?). My wife and I read one chapter together every night. I’ve also read the Catechism of the Catholic Church cover to cover. There is no conflict between the two. They are in full agreement.

Same here I read it time and time again and also listen to it in Audiobooks. No contradictions.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

I’ve read the KJV and NAV twice cover to cover.

 

[DaisyD]

If you read my posts you will see biblical reference chapter and verse. When you study the bible thorough enough you will be able to the same thing. 2tim3:16-17

 

[DaisyD]

Supply the links if you have them.

We know these things all too well and you’re going to be disappointed in the results.

You really do need a knowledge of real history and not the a-C trash you have been fed. But please gimme links to these “historical facts” and watch me refute them. Just try not to get mad or get your feelings hurt…

Start with Fox’s Book of Martyrs

 

[VociMike]

Start with Fox’s Book of Martyrs

Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is a joke to any self-respecting historian.

 

[PhilVaz]

Daisy << Start with Fox’s Book of Martyrs >>

Oh please, yes then move on to Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism, Joseph Zacchello’s Secrets of Romanism, Avro Manhatten’s The Vatican Billions, Charles Chiniquy Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, and who can forget Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons. I sure can’t. I hope I’m not giving you any ideas.

But if you want a serious modern look at English Reformation history and what really happened, get The Stripping of the Altars by Eamon Duffy for the period c. 1400 - 1580.

Phil P

 

[Mannyfit75]

If you read my posts you will see biblical reference chapter and verse. When you study the bible thorough enough you will be able to the same thing. 2 tim3:16-17

But the Bible in 2 Tim 3:16-17 doesn’t say the Bible is the sole rule of faith on all matters.

It only said the following:

All scripture is inspired by God and * profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3:16-17.

However, in the Bible, we see that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth.

14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion:

He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated * in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. - 1 Timothy 3:14-16

 

[Gamera]

If you read my posts you will see biblical reference chapter and verse. When you study the bible thorough enough you will be able to the same thing. 2tim3:16-17

Yes, Daisy, I’ve read the verses you cite. They do NOT condemn praying to the dead. What they condemn is necromancy. Necromancy is contacting the dead for the purpose of getting them to appear (conjuring) or to give information (divination). Catholics consider necromancy a serious sin. When Catholics speak to the saints in heaven, we ask them to pray for us. The BIble tells us we have access to the souls of the justified for this purpose (Hebrews 12:23).

 

[Church_Militant]

If you read my posts you will see biblical reference chapter and verse. When you study the bible thorough enough you will be able to the same thing. 2tim3:16-17

Too late… I already can. Probably every bit as well as you do…maybe even better.

Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is a joke to any self-respecting historian.

Daisy << Start with Fox’s Book of Martyrs >>

Oh please

, yes then move on to Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism, Joseph Zacchello’s Secrets of Romanism, Avro Manhatten’s The Vatican Billions, Charles Chiniquy Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, and who can forget Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons. I sure can’t. I hope I’m not giving you any ideas.

But if you want a serious modern look at English Reformation history and what really happened, get The Stripping of the Altars by Eamon Duffy for the period c. 1400 - 1580.

Phil PYeah, Foxe is soooo objective. (NOT!)
You never read the other side of that did you…the Catholics who were treated as badly or worse by the wonderful warm and fuzzy, loving reformers… like my Catholic Irish ancestors both in Ireland and here in the U. S. angelfire.com/ms/seanie/history/moranindex.html

 

[Bible_Student]

…So the question I have for you, what is your proof that He would let Her endure death?

Hi Grad Student,
My understanding is that the Bible clearly only indicates that Jesus Himself was born sinless. (Rom 3:20-24; 1 John 1:8) Perhaps my problem with the above logic on the assumption of Mary is better stated by substituting Jesus Name into what you have said above concerning Mary.
"The Father truly loved the Son, so why would He allow Jesus to suffer death, death on a cross?
You see this is an argument I have heard from unbelievers and yet you, as a Christian, say pretty much the same about Mary. We could go on and mention Peter, James, Paul, Polycarp, Ignatius and more that Jesus clearly loved. Did they suffer? Did they not die - in all cases very painful deaths?
Are we who are called by His Name today also not called as Christians to walk with Him in our own generation? And, if so, even to suffer and die for our faith in Him if need be rather than deny His all encompassing grace that bought us and redeemed us? Haven’t countless men and women gone before us done exactly this in these last 70 generations since He called His first disciples?
Isn’t it also true that this was not considered dogma by the Catholic Church until 1950 and that the very earliest mention of the assumption of Mary by a Church figure was by Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D who mistakenly based it on the appocryphal, Transitus Beatae Mariae, which was originally condemned by the Catholic Church more than a hundred years before this? Though there are no specifics mentioned on Mary’s death there appears a strong plausible implication that Mary died at Ephesus and was probably buried not that far from the apostle John. (His tomb being mentioned and recorded in Eusebius Book III, Ch 1.) But as far as Mary death goes it’s all highly speculative at best as there is no early writing about her death that has survived the centuries. For such an important figure one can assume someone in the early church must have written about her death - certainly no one said anything about an assumption.
I hope you see my point for as a Christian I think it’s vital and important to stick to what we know to be truth and ensure that we are not just swept away by overly zealous emotions. I can be zealous too and have to remind myself always to temper everything with honest knowledge or the lack thereof. I love all those who love Christ and who have followed Christ. I have no doubt Mary is a Saint and that she is the virgin Mother of our Lord, surely this was a great honor for her indeed! But beyond this there is nothing either in the Bible or in the the first 400 years of writings by orthodox Christian writers to sway me any further on this, nor is anything in its addition that should be found necessary to the Gospel of Christ. Even if it were true it would only amount to a historical fact containing nothing of importance beyond the Gospel of Christ. But here is where, as a Christian I certainly do fear anyone adding anything further to the Gospel of our Lord. You see it He alone that endured the cross and it is by His stripes alone that we are healed and not Mary’s. The author of Hebrews states we should be, “looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Heb 12:2 - There is no need for us to follow anyone but Christ Himself. He alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no man may come unto the Ftaher except by Him. Him alone! All of us, Mary included, owe our deepest thanks and gratitude (in Greek that is eucharisto) to God our Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. We are to worship God and Him alone! Even as great a saint as Paul would not allow anyone to kneel before Him but tore his clothing crying ‘we are but men as you’, when they tried to deify him and Barnabas (Acts 14:14). We should respect the mother of Christ, and her great calling but not just because hers was the blessed womb that bore our Lord, Jesus, and hers were the blessed breasts that nursed our Lord and Savior. (to paraphrase the women who spoke to Jesus in Luke 11:27) but rather far more because Mary was indwelled by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and was also twice as blessed that she heard the Word of God, and kept His Word, as Jesus indicated was far more important - (to paraphrase Luke 11:28 )
I think we need to be very prudent as Christians, as Paul inferred in Gal.1:6 & not wander too far off from the foundations of the Gospel Christ delivered to the apostles. We are called to worship the Father in Spirit and Truth & the Gospel is free and simple so that any and every child of God can hear it and receive it into his or her heart.

May God Bless You, Pat

 

[PhilVaz]

<< like my Catholic Irish ancestors both in Ireland >>

Sorry to hear about those. Dave Armstrong of course probably has the largest page on this stuff…

Inquisitions, Crusades, Scandals

I was trying to find his “Protestant Inquisition” page, used to be on his old site. Daisy Duke would do well to read a little more widely on the subject than polemics from the 1500s. Scholarship has moved forward in 500 years.

Phil P

 

[Church_Militant]

<< like my Catholic Irish ancestors both in Ireland >>

Sorry to hear about those. Dave Armstrong of course probably has the largest page on this stuff…

Inquisitions, Crusades, Scandals

I was trying to find his “Protestant Inquisition” page, used to be on his old site. Daisy Duke would do well to read a little more widely on the subject than polemics from the 1500s. Scholarship has moved forward in 500 years.

Phil P

Indeed it has!
[SIGN]Thanks Be To God![/SIGN]

 

[PhilVaz]

Student << the very earliest mention of the assumption of Mary by a Church figure was by Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D who mistakenly based it on the appocryphal, Transitus Beatae Mariae, which was originally condemned by the Catholic Church more than a hundred years before this? >>

Not quite, here we go again. READ:

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin

Also read the whole thread, darn it! In short, the Transitus literature is considered “significant” and “priceless” both historically and theologically, and St. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 377 AD) beat St. Gregory of Tours by 200 years, although there was some question on Mary’s end. Some of the Transitus literature was indeed listed as “apocryphal” but the Assumption was never condemned, rejected, or called heretical by the Church. It was argued on theological grounds by

Modestus of Jerusalem (d. 634)
St. Germanus of Constantinople (c. 634-733)
St. Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740 )
St. John of Damascus (c. 676-749)
Amadeus, bishop of Lausarme
St. Anthony of Padua (1195-1231)
St. Albert the Great (1206-1280)
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
St. Bonaventure (1221-1274)
Blessed John Duns Scotus (1266-1308)
St. Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444)
St. Peter Canisius (1521-1597)
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621)
St. Francis of Sales (1567-1622)
St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787)

Two early references to the Assumption are:

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 377) : “….either the holy Virgin died and was buried; then her falling asleep was with honor, her death chaste, her crown that of virginity. Or she was killed, as it is written: ‘And your own soul a sword shall pierce’; then her glory is among the martyrs and her holy body amid blessings, she through whom light rose over the world [or her holy body from which light shone forth for all the world, dwells among those who enjoy the repose of the blessed]. Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no one knows….” (Panarion 78:23, PG 42:737).

Timothy of Jerusalem (c. 400 AD) : “…some have supposed that the Mother of the Lord was put to death with a sword and won for herself a martyr’s end. Their reason lies in the words of Simeon, ‘And your own soul a sword shall pierce.’ But such is not the case. A metal sword, you see, cleaves the body; it does not cut the soul in two. Therefore, the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that He who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption [or to the places of His ascension, or into the regions high above].” (In prophetam Simeonem, PG 86:245).

Some late date this “Timothy, a priest from Jerusalem” however between the 6th and 8th centuries.

Phil P

 

[PatienceAndLove]

DaisyD:

2 Thess 11-16
11 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. 12 But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: 13 Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 15 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace,
16 Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word.

2 Thess 3:6-7
6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us. 7 For yourselves know how you ought to imitate us: for we were not disorderly among you

And as I stated before:
Look at all of this in the context of a class-
One does not rely on just the text, on just the lecture, or just on the classroom discussions- those are single sources of information. Lord knows I would be lost in my History of Christianity class if I just read the text. I’d have failed the tests!

You need the text: The Bible
You need the lecture: Tradition
You need the discussion: Catechism