CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[Good_Fella]

During this six-year period a large number of councils were held, in the course of which the Arian cause finally triumphed. The synod of Sirmium, held in 357, condemned the word ousios as being unscriptural and proscribed both the words homo- and homoiousios.

Several emperors favoured Arianism and made its dissemination possible in the Church. So the spread of Arianism was rooted in power politics and not in faith. The heresy was imposed upon faithful Catholics, most of whom rejected its doctrines. The Arians tactfully gained the emperor’s favour and sympathy after their teachings were condemned and rejected by the Council of Nicea. Constantius ll was a dedicated Arian. He allowed the heretical bishops to convene councils and ratify their doctrines, deposing the orthodox Catholics who opposed them. Athanasius had already been deposed as Bishop of Alexandria by Constantine the Great because of his opposition to Arianism. The emperor was swayed by his sister who had sympathized with the Arians. He allowed the return of exiled Arian bishops and endorsed the depositions of other bishops who embraced Arianism. As a result, by interfering with the autonomy of the Church, he unjustly removed and replaced legitimate bishops. His son, Constantius ll, carried on by intimidating several western bishops who opposed Arianism at the synods of Arles (353) and Mediolanum (355). He exiled many prelates who opposed his decrees, including Pope Liberius, who was invalidly replaced by the antipope Felix ll. The emperor’s actions emboldened the Arian bishops to convene the synod of Sirmium, held in the imperial residence. The bishops decreed “there ought to be no mention” of the controverted terms of ‘substantia’, ‘ousia’, and ‘homoousios’ and rejected the Nicene Creed formulated at the Council of Nicea. Following the deaths of the pro-Arian emperors Constantius and Valens, Emperor Theodosius, in 381, gave his blessing to the First Council of Constantinople which ratified the decrees of the Council of Nicea. The 150 bishops in attendance, with representation from Rome, confirmed the Nicene Creed and officially condemned the several forms of Arianism as heretical. When Pope Liberius returned from exile, he annulled all the heretical decrees passed by the invalid councils of the pro-Arian emperors.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Bible_Student]

I see but perhaps I’m not seeing what you are? You are saying that the early church went from the first century to the what century?

Hi Bishopite,
Well 325 would be that year that I would consider the period of the early Church to have ended and a new phase beginning. I know that seems like a very long time, since its been less than 300 years that the United States has been a nation and none of us would hardly call ourselves early Americans. Certainly we already see some undermining of the in the American judicial system relative to the interpretation of the Constitution. I wonder sometimes what some of the fathers of our nation would say to those supreme court interpretations.
Regards, pat

 

[Bible_Student]

Let’s see, according to you the early church fathers don’t give any evidence of Mary’s assumption until the fifth century, which you conclude isn’t orthodox Christian teaching.
Yet you claim 1 Thes 4:17 speaks of the “rapture,” yet NO early church father, NONE of the reformers and NONE of the classical Protestant denominations ever even mention the rapture, no not even the word. At least we Catholics can show Mary’s assumption mentioned in the early centuries as evidence of its truth.
Your “rapture” doesn’t even show up in any writing (Darby,Schofield) until the mid 1800’s?

***Mary’s assumption is written about as early as the 5th century.

***The rapture is written about in the mid 19th century.

If I these two issues (Mary’s assumption and the rapture) were on trial and evidence was presented to determine which of these two are most likely to be true.
One side presented Mary’s assumption from the Bible and the early church and the other side presented their evidence from the Bible and the early church, any rational and objectively honest jury would conclude that Mary’s assumption had MUCH greater evidence of it being true than the rapture.

Hi Bisopite,
Sorry to jump in but the word rapture was an english rendering of the Latin Word “rapiemur” which came from your own Latin Vulgate. It simply means, “caught up” to Christ.
1Th4:17:

Deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus

Peace

 

[andzy]

Certainly we already see some undermining of the in the American judicial system relative to the interpretation of the Constitution. I wonder sometimes what some of the fathers of our nation would say to those supreme court interpretations.

Yes, but there’s a major difference: the Church was established and was promised to be guided and protected by God Himself. Though many Americans might disagree with me, that wasn’t the case with the good old USA.

Sorry to jump in but the word rapture was an english rendering of the Latin Word “rapiemur” which came from your own Latin Vulgate. It simply means, “caught up” to Christ.

Yes, but as we know, today it’s come to mean a teaching, which isn’t just simply about being “caught up” to Christ.

 

[Bible_Student]

HI, Pat and All
Here’s an excerpt from your post to Bishoprite.

In fact John, who looked after Mary according to the Gospel makes no mention of her or the birth of our Lord, as does Luke and Matthew.

In view of the times, I believe the gospels after the ressurection do not mention Mary, because they were protecting her, persecution of Jewish converts was an on going thing of the times…

Further I think Mary was still living when John was writing Revelations, were he incorporates her as the woman clothed with the sun. Just before Jesus died, he said to John behold your Mother.

Stories of Mary in there preaching the gospels, would certainly put her in danger; And I think falls right in line with Rev. 12: 6, The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God. I think it all fits. Of course this is my opinion.

Peace, OneNow1

Hi OneNow,
Mary would have been very old indeed, since most believe John wrote Revelation in 95 AD and that Jesus was born 5 BC. If Mary was 16 years old this would make her a 116. While that is certainly possible it would certainly be the exception to the rule with respect to human longevity. Another theory might be that while Mary was alive when the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were around (Mark was always an abbreviated version) she was not when John wrote his Gospel, probably in the 60’s before the fall of Jerusalem. Many things are probable, and everything is certainly possible with God, but sometimes it’s better if we just say we simply “do not know” as with unsupported speculation we may err.
May God Bless, Pat

 

[Bible_Student]

Yes, but there’s a major difference: the Church was established and was promised to be guided and protected by God Himself. Though many Americans might disagree with me, that wasn’t the case with the good old USA.

Hmmm, maybe I’m just old fashioned patriot but I still believe and love to sing “America, America God shed His grace on Thee”. Without God’s blessing it is doubltful any nation will survive. But to your point about the Church, Yes!“the gates of hell shall not prevail against her”. Her survival is guaranteed till the very day Christ takes her home.
andzy;2675824 with regard to the Latin rendering of "rapture":

Yes, but as we know, today it’s come to mean a teaching, which isn’t just simply about being “caught up” to Christ.

I don’t know specifically what teaching you mean, since in our Church most of the support comes from St Paul and the rest of the Bible.
God Bless, pat

 

[andzy]

I don’t know specifically what teaching you mean, since in our Church most of the support comes from St Paul and the rest of the Bible.

I mean the “left behind” type of Rapture. But it was just an out-of-topic comment anyway

 

[Bible_Student]

That Mary’s assumption isn’t found specifically in the earliest of times of the Catholic church prior to the fourth century isn’t a problem…Disputes about Mary weren’t even started until after Christianity was allowed as a legal religion.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2673202&postcount=504
I used the preceeding post as a brief into early discussions about Mary (pre 325 AD). There was much more but since I typed them by hand please consider this only a sampling. So I think it is apparent that discussions about Mary were going on back then. Some of these I had actually glossed over before - especially with regard to Origen. Certainly his quote has the feel of a doctrinal issue that was beginning to surface.
To quote once again
Origen 225AD:

Originally Posted by Origen c.240
Some say. basing it on a tradition in the ‘Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or the spurious Protoevangelium of James, that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that her body might not know intercourse with a man after she conceived by the Holy Spirit who overshadowed her. And I think it is harmony within reason that just as Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity that consists in chastity, so was Mary among women. For it was not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity.

Now, I love to read some of Origen’s expositions but I have to say this was a bit troubling to me. Troubling because Origen seems to be acutely aware that what others are saying are based on spurious works but for theological leverage appears to be quite willing to support it. Now, I am not saying that Mary couldn’t have remained a perpetual virgin but it seems a stretch to base it entirely on two known spurious writings. This was not the tradition of the Apostles. I refer to none other than Saint Peter himself to make the case.
2 Peter 1:16-21:

The Trustworthy Prophetic Word
(Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35)
For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

In short, I think it is dangerous for the Church to shore up a particular theological position with spurious writings, which is unsupported by the tradition of Christ’s apostles. If we as Christians do this aren’t we deserving to come under correction for it? I look at the plethora of gnostic new-age type teachings today, and how many are trying to cast dispersions upon the New Testament Canon and say spurious gnostic gospels are true and the canonical gospels aren’t. Doesn’t the Church deserve this if we are loosey goosey with canonical Scripture? There is a price to pay when we err or wander off too far from the evidences the Lord left to His Church. I know there are many things the Lord did for her Church that I simply do not know and will not know for sure until I get to heaven. Can’t we all agree that it is the foundational elements of the Gospels, then the Epistles which are the Canon for every Christian, and further supported exegetically by the early Church Fathers? That seems reasonable to me. I really don’t understand why that is not also the position of the Catholic Church, as we speak from strength when we speak from Scripture, since it is derived from the Holy Spirit Himself and not us. It seems it would just make for a more unified, God empowered Church - am I wrong to believe this? The time may be short, although we do not know the day nor the hour. I believe the things that divide us are not nearly as great as He who joins us together in that common bond of love and adoration towards Him.
May God Bless, pat

In Christ, pat

 

[Bible_Student]

I mean the “left behind” type of Rapture. But it was just an out-of-topic comment anyway

My church doesn’t teach out of the “left behind” series. Personally, I wouldn’t go to a church that did - although I don’t know of a single one - since it’s a fictional - just suppose kind of work.
Peace, pat

 

[Pixie_Dust]

My church doesn’t teach out of the “left behind” series. Personally, I wouldn’t go to a church that did - although I don’t know of a single one - since it’s a fictional - just suppose kind of work.
Peace, pat

Does your church teach a Pre-tribulation Rapture, followed by a seven year Tribulation, followed by the Second Coming of Christ? All fictional characters aside, that’s what the Left Behind series is about and is identical to the “End Times” theology I learned as a Baptist.

I find it extremely interesting that they embrace this, “We’re gonna be raptured before the Tribulation, praise God! We’ll vanish in the twinkling of an eye!!” teaching that is relatively new (about as ancient as Mormons and JWs) yet reject the idea that God could have done so for Mary at the end of her earthly life.

 

[Good_Fella]

‘Does the Catholic Church know what God is really like and what he is really saying?’

The Catholic Church knows in faith all that God has said to us in the history of revelation. Our understanding of it, of course, even the understanding of it that the Church enjoys, remains greatly inferior to the magnitude of what God has spoken. On that account there is a development of faith. Each generation, from the point of view of its own circumstances, is able to discover new dimensions of faith that even the Church did not know before. The Lord predicts this in the Gospel of John: “The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth, so that you will come to know those things which would be to much for you now.” That means there is always a surplus, something anticipatory in revelation - not only with respect to what any individual may hitherto have understood (including the Church Fathers), but also with respect to what the Church knows. It is never the case that we can say, Now we know everything; now the knowledge of Christianity is complete.There are unfathomable depths both in God and in human life, so that there are always new dimensions to faith. What has at least been vouchsafed to the Church is a certitude about what can ‘not’ be reconciled with the gospel. She has formulated her most essential perceptions of this in her creed and her dogmas. They are all conceived in negative terms. She points out the borderline beyond which one would stray into error. The area within the borders, so to speak, remains both wide and open.

The former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVl
‘God and the World’

The most complete ancient prayer to our Blessed Mother historically preserved is the ‘Sub Tuum Praesidium’ (A.D. 250):

“We fly to your patronage, O holy Mother of God;
despise not our petitions in our necessities, but
deliver us from all dangers, O glorious and ever Virgin.”

This extant prayer clearly indicates in the life of the early Church a given sacred assent in faith to three subsequent defined Marian doctrines: Mary invoked as the Mother of God, ‘Theotokos’, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the Assumption. (Our petitions are made to Mary who exists body and soul in heaven, not in a tomb, which is of course empty.)

A thousand years in your eyes
are merely a yesterday.

{Psalm 90:4}

What is all this commotion about a few centuries?
Perhaps we should leave man out of this and put the eternal God back into the picture. Meanwhile, where in the scriptures do we find at least one verse that precludes Mary’s Assumption?

Ironically, according to Protestant reasoning against our belief in the Assumption of Mary, The so-called Reformation must be false because it historically occurred 1500 years after Christ visibly established his Church on Pentecost.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[kaycee]

Kaycee,

Since you obviously rely on the early church fathers as evidence for the correct early Christian doctrines would you also abide by the evidence of their writings on other Marian dogmas?

I would certainly consider what they had to say, if there were any early church fathers who mention it. That seems to be part of the problem.

Someone speculating on what might have happend 500 years later is not a basis for doctrine binding upon the individual.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Pat

Quote = OneNow1, Christ wants no guesswork but a sure course of action.The King of truth wants his followers to possess the truth. He speaks to us through the scriptures, the christian tradition, our prayers, and the circumstances of daily life. We can learn true interpretation of these things through His Church. This is apparent when Jesus told Peter and the Apostles this.> Matt18:18, In truth I tell you, whatever [you ]bind on earth will be bound
in heaven; whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven.

Even our good intentions can lead us astray. It is not always easy to be sure what God desires. A true follower of Christ
will look to his church for knowledge and wisdom.

1 Timothy 3 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.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[kaycee]

Yes great point:thumbsup:

Why kaycee can conveniently refer to the ECF’s only on the doctrines he accepts and yet ignores those other writings of the ECF’s that contradict his theology? Perhaps he can tell us?

The problem is there are no ECF’s writing about an assumption.

 

[kaycee]

Let’s see, according to you the early church fathers don’t give any evidence of Mary’s assumption until the fifth century, which you conclude isn’t orthodox Christian teaching.
Yet you claim 1 Thes 4:17 speaks of the “rapture,” yet NO early church father, NONE of the reformers and NONE of the classical Protestant denominations ever even mention the rapture, no not even the word. At least we Catholics can show Mary’s assumption mentioned in the early centuries as evidence of its truth.
Your “rapture” doesn’t even show up in any writing (Darby,Schofield) until the mid 1800’s?

***Mary’s assumption is written about as early as the 5th century.

***The rapture is written about in the mid 19th century.

If I these two issues (Mary’s assumption and the rapture) were on trial and evidence was presented to determine which of these two are most likely to be true.
One side presented Mary’s assumption from the Bible and the early church and the other side presented their evidence from the Bible and the early church, any rational and objectively honest jury would conclude that Mary’s assumption had MUCH greater evidence of it being true than the rapture.

Obviously the rapture is a very late theory of eschatology. It is certainly not what I consider a major doctrine in the least and certainly not binding on anyone. I have no strong convictions in respect to this theory and believe it makes no difference what one believes on this issue.

The one thing I can say is the theory was proposed by Christians derived directly from scripture and Not from Gnostic forgeries.

 

[Good_Fella]

Obviously the rapture is a very late theory of eschatology. It is certainly not what I consider a major doctrine in the least and certainly not binding on anyone. I have no strong convictions in respect to this theory and believe it makes no difference what one believes on this issue.

The one thing I can say is the theory was proposed by Christians derived directly from scripture and Not from Gnostic forgeries.

A bad, fallible interpretation of scripture on the part of Protestants amounts to a forgery.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Bible_Student]

Does your church teach a Pre-tribulation Rapture, followed by a seven year Tribulation, followed by the Second Coming of Christ? All fictional characters aside, that’s what the Left Behind series is about and is identical to the “End Times” theology I learned as a Baptist.

I find it extremely interesting that they embrace this, “We’re gonna be raptured before the Tribulation, praise God! We’ll vanish in the twinkling of an eye!!” teaching that is relatively new (about as ancient as Mormons and JWs) yet reject the idea that God could have done so for Mary at the end of her earthly life.

Hi Pixie,
Actually, that is mostly an in house debate, as far as I know, among protestants. There are pre-tribs, mid-tribs and post tribs. I do know exactly when that will happen. It will be just as foretold at the last trump. All one has to do is put that into context and you resolve the debate However, I don’t think we will vanish but I do believe we all shall be changed and, as far as I know, we do all agree that will occur within in the “twinkling of an eye”. However, it is incorrect to say this is something new to Christianity, since this bit of theology most likely preceeded the planting of the Roman Church. So these verses, though a mystery, are meant just as much for you Pixie as the rest of us and we are instructed to comfort one another with this knowledge. You actually may have heard this before spoken by your priests at funerals or the gravesite.
Saint Paul;s first letter to the Corinthian Church:

Our Final Victory
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed– in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
“**O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?” **
The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.

** 1 Thess 3:15-18**
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Matthew 24:31:

"And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

John the Apostle:

Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. He was holding a little scroll, which lay open in his hand. He planted his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land, and he gave a loud shout like the roar of a lion. When he shouted, the voices of the seven thunders spoke. And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven say, “Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it down.”
Then the angel I had seen standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand to heaven. And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, “There will be no more delay! But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets.”

This is a day we can take great comfort in as it is every Christian’s hope to be with the Lord and become a new creation in Him.

May God Bless, pat

 

[Bible_Student]

Hi, Pat
Christ wants no guesswork but a sure course of action.The King of truth wants his followers to possess the truth. He speaks to us through the scriptures, the christian tradition, our prayers, and the circumstances of daily life. We can learn true interpretation of these things through His Church. This is apparent when Jesus told Peter and the Apostles this.

On this we are very much in agreement brother.
Matt18:18:

In truth I tell you, whatever [you ]bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven.

Yes, I believe this too - how could I not?

Even our good intentions can lead us astray. It is not always easy to be sure what God desires. A true follower of Christ
will look to his church for knowledge and wisdom.

1 Timothy 3 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.

Yes, I believe you are right Onenow. My Dad used to tell me the path to hell is paved with good intentions - although that’s not Scriptural - I’ve seen many so called “good” and “well meaning” intentions lead people astray. We are called to the Church, to be the fingers, toes, nose, eyes, ears and heart and all the other parts of Christ’s body on His mission field here on earth to every generation until He comes in glory. But those very same Apostles that we both so highly regard also taught us to test all things, and to help one another stay pure. I can tell you are a good man of God and that you love Jesus and you love your Church, as you surely should. If God made me a Catholic I would love my Church just as much but I would not be silent - even as I am not silent in my own church. I guess I’m not sure how long I’d last before they asked me to leave. Even though I am not a Catholic I do love my Catholic brothers and sisters very much. I’ve known many with such a sincere love for the Lord that I hold them in my heart as brothers and sisters. I’ve known priests, Holy Ghost Fathers, missionaries, nuns. We may disagree on aspects of theology but I see their love for Jesus in their eyes and hearts just as I do in my own church & on mission with the Lord. The below verses I believe is our Christian duty regardless of whether we are Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant.
1-Thess.5::15-23:

See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all. Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil. Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"Act 17:11:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Rom 12:2:

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

1 Cor.2: 9-13:

However, as it is written:“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

1Jo 4:1:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Cor 11:

But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted,

Peace, OneNow1

You too OneNow, may God richly bless you in all your ministry to the Church you so deeply love.
In Christ, Pat

 

[Bishopite]

[Bible_Student;2675980]forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2673202&postcount=504
I used the preceeding post as a brief into early discussions about Mary (pre 325 AD). There was much more but since I typed them by hand please consider this only a sampling. So I think it is apparent that discussions about Mary were going on back then. Some of these I had actually glossed over before - especially with regard to Origen. Certainly his quote has the feel of a doctrinal issue that was beginning to surface.

When I said disputes about Mary, I was speaking of serious theological disputes that threatened orthodoxy. The Catholic church eventually took on the first theological dispute on Mary which was the theotokos (Mary mother of God). Yes, discussions were going on as Christianity was in its early life. But heresies about who Mary was didn’t rise to the level of threatening the orthodoxy of Christianity until after Nicea 325.

Now, I love to read some of Origen’s expositions but I have to say this was a bit troubling to me. Troubling because Origen seems to be acutely aware that what others are saying are based on spurious works but for theological leverage appears to be quite willing to support it. Now, I am not saying that Mary couldn’t have remained a perpetual virgin but it seems a stretch to base it entirely on two known spurious writings. This was not the tradition of the Apostles. I refer to none other than Saint Peter himself to make the case.

Sure, I see what you are saying but nowhere do you cite where Origen wrote that. However, Origen even though his view of Hell was inconsistant with the Catholic church’s orthodox view, he still retained much truth even as his writings attest about Mary.
Origen…

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity. (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 AD 248).

In short, I think it is dangerous for the Church to shore up a particular theological position with spurious writings, which is unsupported by the tradition of Christ’s apostles.

Unfortunately you aren’t to familiar with early eclessial Christian history, for there was no Protestant church nor Protestant theology in the ECF’s. And just one ECF doesn’t declare what the church teaches; this is found in councils in union with the pope.
It’s unfortunate that many non-Catholic/non-Eastern Orthodox often cite councils (which are Catholic Bishops conviening together) as declaring some theological truth e.g., the Trinity, yet they ignore WHO was given the authority from Jesus via the Apostles.

If we as Christians do this aren’t we deserving to come under correction for it?

Correction is found in the Catholic Magisterium as the council of Nicea 325 affirms; those opposed to the Trinity were far greater in number than the Trinitarians, and even though it was the minority position the Catholic church kept the true orthodox position.
Correction isn’t drawn in the sole authority of the scriptures alone for they themselves show who guides truth, 1 Tim 3:15…the church is the pillar and support of truth.

I look at the plethora of gnostic new-age type teachings today, and how many are trying to cast dispersions upon the New Testament Canon and say spurious gnostic gospels are true and the canonical gospels aren’t.

Well, you wouldn’t have the canon if it wasn’t for the orthodoxy of the Catholic church recognizing it correctly. The first authoritative citation of the entire New Testament was given at the council of Rome in 382; this is how you and I know we are to have 27 NT books and not 26 nor 28.

Doesn’t the Church deserve this if we are loosey goosey with canonical Scripture?

Do you know how we got the canon of scripture?
Again, if you would like to talk about the canon you can read this link I’ve provided. It shows the Catholic Magisterium as authoritatively giving you and I the correct 27 NT books… home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm
History attests to this fact.

There is a price to pay when we err or wander off too far from the evidences the Lord left to His Church.

Yes, this happened in the 1500’s it was called the reformation.

 

[Bishopite]

My church doesn’t teach out of the “left behind” series. Personally, I wouldn’t go to a church that did - although I don’t know of a single one - since it’s a fictional - just suppose kind of work.
Peace, pat

Pat,
When you say “My church” you are talking about a group of Christian believers lead by your pastor, correct?

And when you trace your “Church” back in history (some evidence or citations would be helpful here) as far as you can go, when do you get to its inception?
Catholicism has kept Christian orthodoxy because it is the church Jesus established. Even a non-Christian source like Wikipedia affirms this…

The Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church (see terminology below) is the Christian church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, currently Pope Benedict XVI. It traces its origins to the original Christian community founded by Jesus Christ and spread by the Twelve Apostles, in particular Saint Peter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

Don’t you think Jesus would protect His church from error Mt 16:15-19?