CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[guanophore]

John Chapter 2 verse 1-5

John 19:26-30

In the Gospel of John, he called Mary woman like in the verse which I quoted.

Since Revelation 12:1 was also written by John, he identify the woman in Revelation 12:1 as Mary. We know this to be true because the male child whom she gave birth to is Jesus Christ. You cannot deny that mere fact.

Who literally gave birth to Jesus? Mary did therefore, Mary is the woman in Revelation 12:1.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature, and therefore can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The woman can be seen as Mary, but also Israel, and the Church. All are valid, and appropriate. It is not a conclusive or definitive commentary on the Assumption of the Blessed mother.

And THAT has significance?

Yes, because if the woman in Revelation that gave birth to the male child is interpreted as Mary, then she is alive in heaven, and is wearing a crown. This is where the idea originated that she is Queen of Heaven, and Queen of Angels and Saints.

So were not born of God by Holy Spirit, were born of Mary?

Does Mary actually have wings as well?

All who are born of God through the Holy Spirit are grafted into Christ, we are adopted, and become brothers and sisters of Our Lord Jesus. His mother becomes our mother through adoption.

I cannot speak to the nature of the heavenly body we will receive when wer are resurrected, but it seems to me that our notion of 'wings" on angelic beings is a reflection of how we understand the ability to move without gravity affecting us.

 

[guanophore]

John Chapter 2 verse 1-5

John 19:26-30

In the Gospel of John, he called Mary woman like in the verse which I quoted.

Since Revelation 12:1 was also written by John, he identify the woman in Revelation 12:1 as Mary. We know this to be true because the male child whom she gave birth to is Jesus Christ. You cannot deny that mere fact.

Who literally gave birth to Jesus? Mary did therefore, Mary is the woman in Revelation 12:1.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature, and therefore can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The woman can be seen as Mary, but also Israel, and the Church. All are valid, and appropriate. It is not a conclusive or definitive commentary on the Assumption of the Blessed mother.

And THAT has significance?

Yes, because if the woman in Revelation that gave birth to the male child is interpreted as Mary, then she is alive in heaven, and is wearing a crown. This is where the idea originated that she is Queen of Heaven, and Queen of Angels and Saints.

So were not born of God by Holy Spirit, were born of Mary?

Does Mary actually have wings as well?

All who are born of God through the Holy Spirit are grafted into Christ, we are adopted, and become brothers and sisters of Our Lord Jesus. His mother becomes our mother through adoption.

I cannot speak to the nature of the heavenly body we will receive when wer are resurrected, but it seems to me that our notion of 'wings" on angelic beings is a reflection of how we understand the ability to move without gravity affecting us.

I looked this word “offspring” which is also translated “chilren” or “seed”. This word denotes immediate descendants, children (Matt. 22:24, 25; Mark 12:19–22; Luke 20:28).
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G4690). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
As it has been mentioned before, if you take the route that Rev 12:1 is Mary then the catholic church is wrong that Mary did not have other children.

Well, then, since we know that Mary did not give physical birth to other children, then we also know that this is not the correct interpretation of the passage!

 

[Bishopite]

Are you aware that for centuries this was not the case? If Mary is the woman in Revelations then this is going to cause a number of problems for the catholic church in regards to other aspects of the marian doctrines.

Not at all, the Marian dogmas are built upon each other, Mary is immaculately conceived and thus worthy to be assumed into heaven, but before you think this is a theological problem, the Trinity is built first on Jesus being God for without this Jesus can’t be a person within the Trinity, therefore the christological dogmas are also built upon each other. And the Marian dogmas are christological as they point to Jesus being truly God. Take Mary as the theotokos, if she isn’t the mother of God, the mother of Jesus the “person” not merely His nature, then Jesus isn’t truly a person who is God, both God and man, hence He isn’t the second “person” in the Trinity. These disputes raged throught the early church and perhaps you don’t care about the early church but eclessial Christian history is written in Protestant Christian books stores everywhere and Protestant scholars are VERY interested in it as it is part of the life of the Christian faith post Apostolic period, pre-reformation.

Have you studied the scriptures and seen the support that is given for the marian doctrines? Take the idea of her being the Ark. If this were the case, then we should expect to see the apostles teaching this and yet there is not one shred of evidence from their writings that this is the case. They never speak of her in this manner.

 

[RobHom]

How so?

Have you considered the fact that those people back in 382 might have been a little bit more aware of recent (to them) history, and maybe they were capable of reading the original texts…having a strong working knowledge of the languages they were written in, which is something you are incapable of doing.

Do we need the originals to know what the scriptures teach?

Yes. It is quite well known that since the “reformation” there have been a variety of bibles “written”, and some were commissioned politically. Thus, not all bibles are quite “exact” and contexts have been shifted. This is “secular” fact by the way. Thus, if you have a bible that diverges from the originals, then you are going to have divergent opinions as to “interpretations”.

What i see are catholics making claims about what they think God can do and when i ask for proof that He did do it i get nothing.

No, you got much. You just need to get that log out of your eye, and do the reading and you will have your answers.

I read quite a lot. Why don’t you read it and correct me?

Thats a poor way to dodge a bullet. You asked the questions, I provided you the source for the answers. I already know and accept the information as a part of my beliefs. You need to read the information and absorb it, then you will have your answers. I have no need to “correct you”. Tis thee that needs to correct thyself. I have already led the horse to the water, but I cannot force it to drink.

do you study the scriptures? Do you know them deeply?
Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. Colossians 3:16

And your point would be??? Oh, I see, more amateurish bullet dodging… Yes, I read my bible, I have for the past 50 years, and I read other sources of information…many of which I have provided to you. The depth of my knowledge regarding the bible is irrelevant, as I see “parroting” scripture, and especially out of context as rather disingenuous…and a complete waste of time.

You asked questions, issued challenges…I gave you the answers with sources… Are you afraid to go beyond your stodgy position that “all truth is contained in only one book”? Thats sad. I would have to then guess that you NEVER read any literature that is published by your church or denomination…because you would consider it to be heretical and false?

 

[guanophore]

<<John Chapter 2 verse 1-5

John 19:26-30

In the Gospel of John, he called Mary woman like in the verse which I quoted.>>

Actually, it’s the DIMINUTIVE of GYN that was used. And even in English, diminutives are used to express affection.

<<Since Revelation 12:1 was also written by John, he identify the woman in Revelation 12:1 as Mary. We know this to be true because the male child whom she gave birth to is Jesus Christ. You cannot deny that mere fact.>>

Except that the Woman of Revelation "cried out in travail of childbirth. According to the Eastern Churches, the Virgin suffered NO pain of childbirth.

This is a good point. Mary, being without sin, did not suffer the consequence given to Eve, that she should suffer pain in childbirth.

However, one must remember that GYN comes from a Greek translation of the orignial text. However, in the gospels, the word “woman” applied to Mary was a title of respect, and indicitave of Mary’s role as replacement for Eve.

 

[guanophore]

The problem with this claim is that it goes against so many scriptures. Take for example Matt 13:55—which says “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? When brothers or sisters is used in this way it means actual blood brothers and sisters.

It does not follow that the mother of Jesus is your mother anymore than your mother is my mother. The scriptures also never refer to Mary as the mother of believers. Never.

There are two problems with these statements. One is that the mother of James and Joses and Simon and Judas are different than Mary the mother of Jesus.

Another is that there is an implication that scripture is the sole source of divine revelation, which it is not.

How is it that Mary could become the mother of John? How is Jesus not giving Mary to John not speaking of Mary as the mother of a believer to whom she did not give physical birth?

 

[guanophore]

What do you make of Galatians 1:19- which reads-But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.? This is also the same word in Luke 3:1.

James was a near kinsman of Jesus, possibly the son of Joseph from a previous marriage.
justasking4;2632108:

This particular claim of the catholic church in regards to Mary being a ever virgin is one of the clearest examples of a church that tries to twist the scriptures fit a particular doctrine.

This is an absurd assertion. The Catholic Church wrote the NT. What need would there be to “twist” anything? There is no contradiction between the scripture, and the teaching of the church. If there appears to be, it is because the individual is misunderstanding the scripture.

What is even more amazing is that nothing is gained in the least by making her a “ever virgin” but actually goes against not only that which is natural between husband and wife, but aginst one of the primary functions of marriage is to have children.

It seems to me that this is actually more of a proof to the ancient teaching of the Church that she was ever virgin. Many of the teachings of Christianity don’t “make sense” in the natural world.

The scriptures concur on this also. “Blessed is the man who is blessed with children”. Psalm 127:3-5. Our salvation and growth in Christ is not in the least impacted by how many children she had.

You are right, so why teach this? Because this it the faith that has been handed down to us by the Apostles. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. One cannot understand her role in salvation history without studying the typology of the Ark in the OT. No man would dare to put a hand to the Ark, under pain of death.

 

[guanophore]

What they beleived in 382 is irrelevant. We know what the scriptures teach because we have them. We can study the scriptures and see.

This is an amazing statement.

What “they believed” in 382 is what gave you the scriptures to which you now appeal as the final authority! If the Church had not written, preserved, and defined the canon, what authority would you have?

Just because a particular word like Trinity is not found in the scriptures doesn’t mean its not true.

You are absolutely correct, justasking. There are other authorities of divine revelation that define truth, in addition to scripture. By those sources, we know which books belong in the Bible, that there is a Trinity, that Mary was ever virgin, and that she was assumed into Heaven.
justasking4;2632108:

We have plenty of passages that demonstrate the truth of the Trinity. What passages in scripture can you point to that says Mary is the New Eve?

The understanding that Mary is the New Eve comes from the Apostolic authority.

 

[guanophore]

I, however, believe that the woman is Mary. I also believe the woman also symbolizes the Church. Though I find the woman as Israel as unsupported.

Your personal opinion does not carry any more weight in this matter than the personal opinion of justasking.

The identity of the woman in Revelation as Israel is supportable. Jesus Himself said that salvation came through Israel:

John 4:22
22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."

And since Jesus Himself was a Jew, a son of the covenant of Israel, how is it that He is not born of the Jews?

Rom 3:1-2
3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God."

Rom 9:3-5
for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ."

Jesus is as much the child of Israel as He is the child of Mary!

I do believe that the woman is the Church and Mary, and I stand firm with that.

I hope your decision does not close your mind to other points of view, even though you may choose not to espouse them.

I believe the male child to be Jesus on the premise that this child will rule all nations with an iron rod.

You are right, of course, but that Son is the Son of Israel also.

We Catholics interpret Revelation 12:1 in both literal and symbolic terms. None of which are incorrect.

Amen to that!

 

[onenow1]

Hi,All
Genesis 2:
23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called [Woman ] because she was taken out of Man.”

John 19
26 When Jesus saw his mother,] and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman,] behold, your son!”
27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your [mother!”] And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

Whats interesting here is the use of the words mother and woman.

In Genesis God makes man a helper and Adam calls her woman.]

He adresses the disciple and tells him to behold your mother.] Our helper as in Genesis.

Now we know John was’nt Mary’s son by birth ! Assumption yes !

Peace,OneNow1

 

[guanophore]

Hi Pixie,
Are you sure this really been the interpretation of the Church for 2000 years? because I’m very sure that many here would like to see that claim backed up with your early sources of documentation for it, say starting (as you say) from 7 AD.
Tell you what Pixie, I’ll go ahead (after church that is) and pull up the exegetical works of the Fathers on Revelation that I believe back up that “the mother” is “the church” and you pull up yours backing up Mary is the mother of Rev 12 and the mother of us all. Let’s just work within the boundaries of the first 400 years only, please. Perhaps then we may be able to properly expound this in plain site for everyone’s benefit, rather than get into a “he said, she said”, which never does much to diseminate truth.

In Christ, pat

I think 2000 years is a little long. I think, like the canon, the nature of Christ, the Trinity, and other truths germaine to our faith, understanding and definition took some time. If the canon of scripture took nearly 400 years, why limit yourself to that time frame?

Early Church Fathers on the Assumption of Mary

Pseudo – Melito

If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: “Be it done according to your will” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

Timothy of Jerusalem

Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

John the Theologian

The Lord said to his Mother, “Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens”. . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

 

[guanophore]

Hi Pixie,
Are you sure this really been the interpretation of the Church for 2000 years? because I’m very sure that many here would like to see that claim backed up with your early sources of documentation for it, say starting (as you say) from 7 AD.
Tell you what Pixie, I’ll go ahead (after church that is) and pull up the exegetical works of the Fathers on Revelation that I believe back up that “the mother” is “the church” and you pull up yours backing up Mary is the mother of Rev 12 and the mother of us all. Let’s just work within the boundaries of the first 400 years only, please. Perhaps then we may be able to properly expound this in plain site for everyone’s benefit, rather than get into a “he said, she said”, which never does much to diseminate truth.

In Christ, pat

Early Church Fathers on the Assumption of Mary

Timothy of Jerusalem

Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

One has to consider that any and all serious heresies of the time were vociferously addressed by the fathers. Since this belief was never denied or written against, we know that it was not inconsistent with the Apostolic traditions

 

[guanophore]

Are you aware that for centuries this was not the case? If Mary is the woman in Revelations then this is going to cause a number of problems for the catholic church in regards to other aspects of the marian doctrines.

no.

Have you studied the scriptures and seen the support that is given for the marian doctrines? Take the idea of her being the Ark. If this were the case, then we should expect to see the apostles teaching this and yet there is not one shred of evidence from their writings that this is the case. They never speak of her in this manner.

This is not a problem for catholics, who understand that some truths that have been revealed take time to understand. The contents of what belonged in the Bible, the nature of the Trinity, the dual nature of Jesus and many other concepts took centuries to understand and define.

Most of the Apostles died before Mary, all except John. It is only in retrospect can we understand these concepts.

 

[guanophore]

The simple fact that The Assumption of the Virgin Mary was not detailed in the bible is irrelevant… There are ample ancient writings attesting to it, and further to deny it is to attempt to limit God’s ability to do as he can. Is it not true that with God, all things are possible?

It is an absurd expectation, since most of the NT was written while she was STILL ALIVE!

The bible, my friend…is not the final word. And while I cannot find the exact passage I wanted, I might suggest that you read and ponder this one: 2 Thessalonians 2:15. It is significant.

John 20:30-31

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

John 21:25

25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

The bible itself does not claim to be the fullness of revelation.

 

[guanophore]

What evidence do you have for this “oral tradition that comes from the apostles”? Which apostle and where can this be found?

The Divine Deposit of Faith, through both oral and written sources, is found in the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Apostolic Tradition is that truth about what Christ revealed to His Apostles that has been passed on through duly ordained ministers from the Apostlic times.

The only thing i know what the apostles taught is in the scriptures. If its not in there then i don’t know.

I think this is a pretty standard condition of all Protestants, having separated themselves from the Apostolic Traditin, there is no way to know anything about the Sacred Oral Traditions passed on through the Apostolic Succession.

By the way this applies to everyone else.

I am not sure what this statement means, but it seems as though you are saying that no one else can know any truth other than what is taught in the Bible either. I think this is true if one is a Protestant, since the Sacred Tradition is rejected as a matter of course. I think the rejection of the Church’s authority to preserve that Tradition, as well as the Tradition itself is what defines Protestant.

The problem with this method is that you could say the same thing about so many other things. Muhammad for example claimed that he was the advocate that Jesus predicted would come. That to would be an implicit claim. Would you believe that?
i hope not. Saying that Mary is the ark finds no such support in the scriptures. Jesus nor His apostles never taught such a thing.

Well, yes and know. The Church does have the authority given by Jesus to say many other things. However, the Church does not say things that have not been revealed by God, so there are limitations on that. The scriptures themselves testify that they do not contain all of Jesus’ teachings and workings.

 

[guanophore]

What evidence do you have for this “oral tradition that comes from the apostles”? Which apostle and where can this be found?

The Divine Deposit of Faith, through both oral and written sources, is found in the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Apostolic Tradition is that truth about what Christ revealed to His Apostles that has been passed on through duly ordained ministers from the Apostlic times.

The only thing i know what the apostles taught is in the scriptures. If its not in there then i don’t know.

I think this is a pretty standard condition of all Protestants, having separated themselves from the Apostolic Traditin, there is no way to know anything about the Sacred Oral Traditions passed on through the Apostolic Succession.

By the way this applies to everyone else.

I am not sure what this statement means, but it seems as though you are saying that no one else can know any truth other than what is taught in the Bible either. I think this is true if one is a Protestant, since the Sacred Tradition is rejected as a matter of course. I think the rejection of the Church’s authority to preserve that Tradition, as well as the Tradition itself is what defines Protestant.

The problem with this method is that you could say the same thing about so many other things. Muhammad for example claimed that he was the advocate that Jesus predicted would come. That to would be an implicit claim. Would you believe that?
i hope not. Saying that Mary is the ark finds no such support in the scriptures. Jesus nor His apostles never taught such a thing.

Well, yes and no. The Church does have the authority given by Jesus to say many other things. However, the Church does not say things that have not been revealed by God, so there are limitations on that. The scriptures themselves testify that they do not contain all of Jesus’ teachings and workings.

What i see are catholics making claims about what they think God can do and when i ask for proof that He did do it i get nothing.

I think not. I think you are getting the Teaching of the Church. Most of the tenets of our faith cannot be "proven’. Especially with the limitations you have placed on what can be used as proof. You don’t accept the Teaching Authority which Jesus gave to His Apostles, so there is little hope of “proving” anything to you.

do you study the scriptures? Do you know them deeply?
Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. Colossians 3:16

We are not disparaging the scriptures, or their value. It is most excellent that you want the Word of God to dwell in you richly. I urge you, therefore, to remember that it was the Catholic Church that produced the scriptures to which you cling with all your heart, and she alone as the authority to interpret their meaning.

 

[Joero]

If Mary is the woman in Revelations then this is going to cause a number of problems for the catholic church in regards to other aspects of the marian doctrines.

There’s no doubt that the woman in Rev. 12:1 refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It could never be referred to the church of the old covenant or the christian church. Why? Firstly, if it is the church of the old covenant, then it would contradict specifically Jer. 31:31-32 which says that the Israelites had broken God’s covenant(the old covenant). The crown of glory representing the 12 stars (which some theologians interpreted as the 12 tribes of Israel) over the head of the woman in Rev. 12:1 could not be possible to refer to the 12 tribes of Israel because they had broken God’s covenant! So, Rev.12:1 could never refer to the church of the old covenant!

The church founded by our Lord here on earth ( the militant church) still striving to fulfill Jesus’ command, the example is 2 Corinthians 5:6 which states that while we are still in our earthly body, we are far from the Lord’s home. So the crown of glory is still to be reached and not yet acquired referring to the 12 stars in Rev. 12: 1. If Rev.12:1 refers to the triumphant church (the souls of the elect Rev. 19:1) it would also contradict to the teaching of St. Paul that the resurrection of the dead, who were in Christ, would happened in the second coming of Christ. Meaning that the final crown of glory is not yet achieved, if we are to refer to the 12 stars on the head of the woman in Rev. 12: 1.

Have you studied the scriptures and seen the support that is given for the marian doctrines? Take the idea of her being the Ark. If this were the case, then we should expect to see the apostles teaching this and yet there is not one shred of evidence from their writings that this is the case. They never speak of her in this manner.

If Christ is the new covenant (Heb. 9: 14-15), then the parallelism is that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the ark of the new covenant, from whom Jesus Christ totally took His human nature. Remember that the church on earth are living creatures and developing thru education, philosophies etc., meaning it is not stagnant as others perceived it to be.

 

[onenow1]

Let’s look at it this way, who was the first one to ever call Mary blessed ? I think a good with look at scripture we should come to the conclusion that it was God Himself that called Mary Blessed. I say this because Gabriel was an angel, which means messenger of God, these are the words of God himself ! Mary’s own words verify this with her prophecy, all generations will call me blessed,you have to remember triune God is with her now,
and its not an exageration its been fulfilled, the Catholic Church has a name for her, THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY.
Should’nt we all be calling her blessed?

Peace OneNow1

 

[kaycee]

I think 2000 years is a little long. I think, like the canon, the nature of Christ, the Trinity, and other truths germaine to our faith, understanding and definition took some time. If the canon of scripture took nearly 400 years, why limit yourself to that time frame?

Early Church Fathers on the Assumption of Mary

Pseudo – Melito

If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: “Be it done according to your will” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2-17 [A.D. 300]).

These are Gnostic forgeries created to decieve people into thinking it was written by Bishop Melito.

2 Popes condemned this forgery.

Timothy of Jerusalem

Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).

Timothy of Jerusalem is listed as having been around in 6th century by wikapedia. Obviously having heard the Gnostic forgeries. Your date of 400 cannot be correct.

John the Theologian

The Lord said to his Mother, “Let your heart rejoice and be glad. For every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit. Every soul that calls upon your name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy and comfort and support and confidence, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens”. . . And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise (The Dormition of Mary [A.D. 400]).

Another forgery attributed to the apostle John. Strongly parallels pseudo Melito (forgery) written 6th century.

The assumption is a gnostic fable that gradually crept into the church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And yet we find many other references (of course, you’ll say that the writers were ‘corrupted by the gnostic fables’ and ignore the fact that it could equally be likely that the gnostic gospels contain, in addition to the false elements which ‘make’ them gnostic, true elements as well) which are in no wise ‘gnostic’.

And while every other ‘gnostic’ or ‘heretical’ or ‘schismatic’ or otherwise wrong doctrine --from gnosticism to Manicheanism, iconoclassicism, Albigensienism, Nestorianism, Arianism, Donaticism, etc. managed NEVER to become ‘official’ Church teaching–even when Arianism was espoused by a MAJORITY of Christians, even when a POPE was under the Arian influence; even when schism and outright heresy caused the church to be split asunder. . .

Somehow this one ‘doctrine’ managed to infiltrate the church.

I. Don’t. Buy. It.

My position has 2000 years of Scriptural and traditional basis.

Yours has less than 500 years of ‘presumptive’ and conflicting basis. Even your first ‘reformers’ did not presume at first to challenge Church doctrines–the assumption included–only ‘individuals’ whose actions either themselves went against Church teachings, and whose ‘discipline’ the reformers felt was either too little, too late. Only after these reformers felt personally that the reforms were not advancing ‘quickly enough’ did they (to justify themselves) start cherry picking doctrine.

There is nothing wrong with honest doubt, but as a wise man once said, “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.” The problem comes not with the doubt, but with the deliberate choice to range one’s own (or another ‘human’) intellect above that of Almighty God.

Had the reformers been content to work with the Church, to raise their difficulties and doubts and, even when still confused and conflicted, to adhere to the Scriptural, GOD-GIVEN authority of the Church, not only would we have a united Christendom today, we would be celebrating St. Martin Luther, St. John Knox, and a unified doctrine in which we would ALL be sharing. God knows how different this world might have been but since He pled “that all might be one” it is most likely that most if not all of the ills of the past 500 years, including colonialism, communism, and many wars would have been avoided. How sad that to satisfy some individuals’ pride, others’ greed, the anger of many (and lest you feel I am too one sided, it is also the fault of many on ‘our side’ who did not obey Church teaching in the first place, those who, while the intention may have been to be ‘merciful’, may also have been unduly influenced to not take quicker steps to resolve differences), but above all, the greatest fault of refusal to submit to proper authority, in humility and obedience, we have come to such a fractioning of our Christian faith.