CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[Tantum_ergo]

Would you say, Just, that God is so limited that He cannot permit His saving grace to come ‘through’ another? Why, He permitted His only begotten Son to come ‘through’ Mary, didn’t He? What He has done He continues to do.

Furthermore, your 'bolding" of a text which you refuse to give IN CONTEXT and thus are TWISTING in an attempt to have it understood (by your bolding) as saying something it DOES NOT (in that context), is yet another example of intellectual dishonesty on your part, as you have been told of this bad habit over and over.

Apparently you cannot grasp the difference between ‘questioning’ and giving a ‘real’ example of what you question, as opposed to the very dishonest PRESENTATION of something as a ‘question’, but presenting the ‘question’ without context and indeed attempting to paint it not as a ‘question’ you have, but an ERRONEOUS TEACHING, not even WORTHY of question.

 

[guanophore]

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.

It would be, if that is what the Church were doing.

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

This is true, but you will only have a “light beating”, since you did not know where His Church was located, so that you could not know you were outside of the teachings. One of the evidences that the Lord left was the Apostolic Authority. Most protestants, through no fault of their own, are not aware of what this is, or how it works.

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.

This is true, but there are things that Jesus has revealed to us that we can know, such as the Assumption of Mary.

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.

The CAtholic church does affirm all these, but under the guidance of the Apostolic Authority that Jesus appointed.

It seems it would just make for a more unified, God empowered Church - am I wrong to believe this?

No! You are RIGHT ON!

You just do not recognize that this is the Catholic Church.

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

Amen! Keep searching. He who seeks will find, and to him that knocks, the door is opened.

 

[justasking4]

Would you say, Just, that God is so limited that He cannot permit His saving grace to come ‘through’ another? Why, He permitted His only begotten Son to come ‘through’ Mary, didn’t He? What He has done He continues to do.

Furthermore, your 'bolding" of a text which you refuse to give IN CONTEXT and thus are TWISTING in an attempt to have it understood (by your bolding) as saying something it DOES NOT (in that context), is yet another example of intellectual dishonesty on your part, as you have been told of this bad habit over and over.

Apparently you cannot grasp the difference between ‘questioning’ and giving a ‘real’ example of what you question, as opposed to the very dishonest PRESENTATION of something as a ‘question’, but presenting the ‘question’ without context and indeed attempting to paint it not as a ‘question’ you have, but an ERRONEOUS TEACHING, not even WORTHY of question.

Please help my twisted mind. What is St Ligori saying here?
Is he not saying that Mary saves him from hell? Is not this idea reflected in the hail Mary?

 

[Linkowski]

The Assumption has been believed and celebrated since the earliest times of Christianity. The feast was celebrated under various names (Commemoration, Dormition, Passing, Assumption) from at least the fifth or sixth century. Homilies concerning the Assumption go back to at least the Sixth Century. However, in order to make it a dogma of the faith meaning all Catholics must believe it, Pope Pius XII dogmatically declared Mary’s Assumption into Heaven in 1950:

“… by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (Munificentissimus Deus)

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VI

Do you really seek to undestand this teaching? If so, pick up a copy of “Hail, Holy Queen” by Scott Hahn, a former protestant minister who is a Scriptural Expert.

From Messianic Psalm 69:
Ps 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.
9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me (referred to in the NT - Ro 15:3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.)

John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

Mr 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Not only do we have a problem with the teachings surrounding Mary (Assumption/perpetual virginty, etc.) but we also take issue with praying TO her and consecrating oneself to her. It goes far beyond asking her to pray for you.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Let’s see the Hail Mary, shall we?

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. (all of this is directly from Luke’s gospel)

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.

Mary is certainly holy. She is the mother of God. We ask her to pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

And your problem with this is. . .?

As far as St. Alphonus Ligouri, if you were to examine his work with the kind of understanding that you would apply to, let’s say, St. Augustine, you would have a much lesser chance of making the errors you do.

For I am sure that you not only look at what is known of St. Augustine’s own life, and the context of the society in which he lived, the people who knew and wrote of him, and that when you read his work, you are not reading what he says, in richly imaged language, purely ‘literally’, and without taking into account how the images he gives relate to what is taught in Scripture and by other ECFs, RIGHT???

So, when you read any Christian author, is it not equally incumbent upon you to read in that SAME way, rather than to attempt to place 21st century style and word definitions onto their works (unless they themselves are 21st century authors)? Or is it only the CATHOLIC “Post Reformation” authors like St. Ligouri and St. Louis de Montfort who are to be taken out of context in ALL areas --not just ‘composition’ but in every other area–and presented as you have been doing AD INFINITUM on these fora?

 

[Linkowski]

Let’s see the Hail Mary, shall we?

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. (all of this is directly from Luke’s gospel)

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.

Mary is certainly holy. She is the mother of God. We ask her to pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

And your problem with this is. . .?

As far as St. Alphonus Ligouri, if you were to examine his work with the kind of understanding that you would apply to, let’s say, St. Augustine, you would have a much lesser chance of making the errors you do.

For I am sure that you not only look at what is known of St. Augustine’s own life, and the context of the society in which he lived, the people who knew and wrote of him, and that when you read his work, you are not reading what he says, in richly imaged language, purely ‘literally’, and without taking into account how the images he gives relate to what is taught in Scripture and by other ECFs, RIGHT???

So, when you read any Christian author, is it not equally incumbent upon you to read in that SAME way, rather than to attempt to place 21st century style and word definitions onto their works (unless they themselves are 21st century authors)? Or is it only the CATHOLIC “Post Reformation” authors like St. Ligouri and St. Louis de Montfort who are to be taken out of context in ALL areas --not just ‘composition’ but in every other area–and presented as you have been doing AD INFINITUM on these fora?

Little in comparison to this…

Immaculate Conception, Mary, my Mother.
Live in me. Act in me. Speak in and through me.
Think your thoughts in my mind. Love, through my heart.
Give me your dispositions and feelings.
Teach, lead and guide me to Jesus.
Correct, enlighten and expand my thoughts and behavior.
**Possess my soul. Take over my entire personality and life.
Replace it with yourself.**Incline me to constant adoration and thanksgiving.
Pray in me and through me.
Let me live in you and keep me in this union always.
– Pope John Paul II

And many others that you might find on Catholic.org…i.e.:

O Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Queen of Heaven and Earth,
and tender Mother of men,
in accordance with Thy ardent wish made known at Fatima,
I consecrate to Thy Immaculate Heart myself,
my brethren,
my country and the whole human race.

**Reign over us, **
Most Holy Mother of God,
and teach us how to make the Heart of Thy Son,
Our Lord Jesus Christ reign
and triumph in us even as It has reigned
and triumphed in Thee.

Reign over us,
Most Blessed Virgin,
that we may be Thine in prosperity
and in adversity,
in joy and in sorrow,
in health and in sickness,
in life and in death.

…

Therefore, Most Gracious Virgin and Mother,
I hereby promise to imitate Thy virtues
by the practice of a true Christian life
without regard to human respect.

I resolve to receive Holy Communion regularly
and to **offer to Thee **five decades of the Rosary each day,
together with my sacrifices,
in the spirit of reparation and penance.

Our only Advocate should be Christ himself…

1Jo 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Only God should be given this prayer - to reign over us. I have no other need besides this. The trinity falls defeated in the rosary 53 to 6 I think.

 

[kaycee]

Pope Gelasius and Pope Hormisdas did not condemn the wide spread and long standing Christian belief in the Assumption. No pope has ever condemned this belief.

Please tell us why 2 Popes condemned the Transitus Beatae Mariae literature considering its only topic is the “assumption” of Mary?

What evidence allows you to state that the “assumption” was a “wide spread and long standing christian belief”?

If anything, the Church has rejected how apocryphal texts have embellished this belief which dates back to apostolic time in Palestine. The Church has also rejected apochryphal writings concerning the supernatural events surrounding Jesus without questioning what really happened. Belief in the Assumption does not originate with these apochryphal works but rather has led to them.

Clearly that is refuted by Ephanius in 377 who lived near Palestine and says plainly that no one knows what happend to Mary.

The first mention of Mary’s fate is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. **He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ **These are his words:

But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

There is clearly no existing Apostolic tradition, no rumors, nothing but conjecture in Palestine around the year 377.

What leads you to make the statement that this belief dates back to Apostolic times?

Can you explain the utter silence on the assumption that Catholic historians admit to?

As I said before, Pope Pius Xll ignored the apocryphal texts and focused strictly on Sacred Scriptures when he promulgated the dogma of Mary’s Assumption in his Apostolic Constitution ‘Munificentissimus Deus’. It is irrelevant to mention these apocryphal works.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

What biblical “evidence” is there that does not require strained rationalization and theories of what God might do that would be fitting?

 

[heisenburg]

Link…

With Humble respect

You seem to have conveniently not looked at the parts of the prayers that say why we want to have Mary on our side, praying for us, Helping our thoughts, minds, etc…

Immaculate Conception, Mary, my Mother.
Live in me. Act in me. Speak in and through me.
Think your thoughts in my mind. Love, through my heart.
Give me your dispositions and feelings.
Teach, lead and guide me to Jesus.
Correct, enlighten and expand my thoughts and behavior.
Possess my soul. Take over my entire personality and life.
Replace it with yourself.Incline me to constant adoration and thanksgiving.
Pray in me and through me.
Let me live in you and keep me in this union always.

so, asking her to guide us to Jesus is Wrong?

O Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Queen of Heaven and Earth,
and tender Mother of men,
in accordance with Thy ardent wish made known at Fatima,
I consecrate to Thy Immaculate Heart myself,
my brethren,
my country and the whole human race.

Wasn’t her ‘wish’ that everyone come to Christ?

Most Holy Mother of God,
and teach us how to make the Heart of Thy Son,
Our Lord Jesus Christ reign
and triumph in us even as It has reigned
and triumphed in Thee.

Asking her to teach us how to have the heart of Jesus reign within us is bad?

Therefore, Most Gracious Virgin and Mother,
I hereby promise to imitate Thy virtues
by the practice of a true Christian life
without regard to human respect.

So it is wrong to try and imitate the servitude Mary gave Christ?

I resolve to receive Holy Communion regularly
and to offer to Thee five decades of the Rosary each day,
together with my sacrifices,
in the spirit of reparation and penance.

So we are not to partake in his supper? ask mary to pray for us (thats what offer up in this context means) and hope for a spirit of repentance?

Link…

You are reading what is not there… You see

“Mary Guide me…” and scream bloody murder
But you fail to even see the second part…

“… to Jesus”

I am most certainly allowed to ask you to help guide me to Jesus… Please do not say this does NOT apply to the saints as well… that would be nothing short of hypocritical

In Christ

 

[Bible_Student]

The problem here is that you imply that the Church can fall into error in her teaching and that cannot happen, else Christianity is a bad joke.

Hi CM,
And exactly why would that make Christianity a bad joke? I would suggest you take it up the argument with St. Paul and St. John when you get to the pearly gates, as all I did was post some Scripture. So no, I did not hint or imply anything since the Bible clearly states that God wasn’t always happy with the way the early church sometimes conducted itself, including some of those more liberal allowances that were being taught which had crept in and taken them many unawares. Depending on how you interpret the parable of the tares and the wheat Christ, Himself, had every expectation that the church would be mixed with people who were both enemies of God as well as possessing His true sheep and He never said the Church would always be right or righteous. Now, you can take some license with that if you want and say that neither He or the Apostles were not talking about the leaders. of the Church but how about this one.
Galatians 2:2:13:

It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but {I did so} in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But {it was} because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)–well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter {had been} to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in {his} apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we {might} {go} to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. {They} only {asked} us to remember the poor–the very thing I also was eager to do. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he {began} to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

You see, the Church does overcome all things, even itself.
If you’d like I could post some Early Church Fathers as well
"Church Militant:

If you look at the history of the Church you find that she has never been overcome because she has always identified and countered errors and heresies… this was in force even in the New Testament.

Like I said I think you are mixing up inerrant and overcomer. I don’t want to go down a rat hole here and shock you with history that is far less than pristine so I won’t. Just suffice to say there’s been plently of mistakes made on all sides of the Christian fence.

The wheat and tares has nothing to do with teaching…it has to do with moral failings and those who fail to persevere to the end.

Really? So then, they really weren’t tares at all just some wheat that wasn’t quite strong enough? Interesting twist on Jesus’ parable CM. Can we get the full exposition so we can understand what you mean?
In Christ, pat

 

[Bible_Student]

No… it’s not.

Yes, it is!

There, I said it louder. Do I win?

 

[Bible_Student]

No… it’s not.
That teaching has no basis in any Christian belief and teaching prior to about 1825.

Hi CM,
You, didn’t think I would leave it like that do you? I didn’t realize that Saint Jerome wrote the Latin Vulgate in 1825. For he’s the one that actually put that verb ‘raptum’ in the Bible translating it from the Greek word ‘harpazo’. You may know that for many years it was considered illegal by the Roman Church to translate the Bible to English, or any other language for that matter just ask John Wycliffe or John Hus. They exhumed Wycliffe’s body from the grave and dragged it through the streets before his corpse was drawn and quartered for that grave sin. Kind of ridiculous but then not so for John Hus who was burned at the stake for trying to do the same thing, which is let the native people read the Word of God in their own language.

raptum

eiusmodi usque ad tertium caelum

Notice the sense is the same ‘caught up to heaven’ and ‘caught up to the Lord’.

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin rapere Date: 14th century
1 a archaic : to seize and take away by force b : DESPOIL
726 harpazo {har-pad’-zo} (RAPTURE)
from a derivative of 138; TDNT - 1:472,80; v
AV - catch up 4, take by force 3, catch away 2, pluck 2,
catch 1, pull 1; 13

1. to seize, carry off by force
2. to seize on, claim for one’s self eagerly
3. to snatch out or away as in

So all in all, rapture is a much tamer word than some others etymologically derived from the Latin - which I will not mention here.
1Thess 4:17:

Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up **726 **harpazo] together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

There are several other words for rapture, that carry this “rapture ot taken” theme, and are translated as “taken” using the Greek work ‘Paralambano’ from Matthew’s Gospel. Recall “one will be grinding one taken…”
2Cor 12:2-4:

How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
Lt: quoniam raptus est in paradisum et audivit arcana verba quae non licet homini loqui

1Th 4:17:

Then **we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: **and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus

Rev 12:5:

And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child **was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne. **
et peperit filium masculum qui recturus erit omnes gentes in virga ferrea et raptus est filius eius ad Deum et ad thronum eius

Other Related senses of the word

Mat 11:12 And 1161 from 575 the days 2250 of John 2491 the Baptist 910 until 2193 now 737 the kingdom 932 of heaven 3772 suffereth violence 971 , and 2532 the violent 973 take 726 0 it 846 by force 726 .

Jhn 10:28 And I 2504 give 1325 unto them 846 eternal 166 life 2222; and 2532 they shall 622 0 never 3364 1519 165 perish 622 , neither 2532 3756 shall 726 0 any 5100 [man] pluck 726 them 846 out of 1537 my 3450 hand 5495.

peace, pat

 

[Bishopite]

Hi Bishoprite, you’re preaching to the choir. What Christian denomination doesn’t believe Mary was the mother of God unless they do not believe in Jesus’ divinity as the Son of God?

Pat,

I was a Southern Baptist for thirty-eight years and one of my brothers is a SB, it does not teach the theotokos. You accept the theotokos?

We cannot find a single extant Christian author for 300 years after the formation of the Church who mentions anything about the Assumption and all of a sudden we find them combatting heresy for those who do would like to understand the origin of the work that substantiates it?

 

[Bishopite]

In short, I think it is dangerous for the Church to shore up a particular theological position with spurious writings,

 

[Bishopite]

Hi Again,
Where did Jesus say there would be no error in the Church. That premise seems fantastic to me. Yes, the gates of hell shall not prevail against Christ’s Church but it would be sweepingly out of context to say that means she would never commit errors.

Pat,
Mt 16:18-19. That the gates of hell will NOT prevail against Jesus’ church is where Jesus is saying He will protect the universal church from formal error.
You are mixing up personal errors or non-dogmatic errors with formal dogmatic doctrinal decrees.

You must have read the parable of the tares and the wheat. What does that mean to you?

What that means is Catholics who practice contraception or deny the Eucharist as the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, yet call themselves “Catholic” aren’t always to be removed, for if they are removed then their children will also suffer from not being able to hear the gospel message of Jesus Christ, so Jesus says let them stay for to take them out is more harmful than to keep them in.

How about Revelation - were the 7 Churches there proclaimed to be without error by Christ?
To the Church at Ephesus
‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.
To the Church at Pergamum
I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality.So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent.
To the Church at Thyatira
“‘I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead.

I don’t have time for more, maybe when I return from work. But I believe you must already get my point.

In Christ, pat

Yes, Pat I know the passages well. What this is speaking of is local city-churches or parishes if you will as I hope you would agree that these churches were part of the ONE church. The Creeds say “One holy Catholic and Apostolic church.” One church not many. The Apostles had but one doctrine together under one church; Eph 4:4-6
“one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

There is one body, one faith not differing ones in each particular city-church.
And John who wrote Revelation also wrote John 17:21, the very words of our Lord Jesus who prayed that
“21so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”

The Apostle Paul said in 2 Tim 2:15…
“Be eager to present yourself as acceptable to God, a workman who causes no disgrace, imparting the word of truth without deviation”

Are you saying the church of Thyatira and the church at Ephasus had differing doctrines??
Or that the church of Corinth had differing doctrines than Pergamum?

Each city-church like Ephasus had differing issues than did the others. The church at Corinth had people going to communion drunk, see 1 Cor 10-11. Some of the city-churches were more obedient than the others; all have their problems but all are part of the one church Jesus established. He said in Mt 16:15-19 “…I will build My church”
Not I will build My churches! “Church” is in the singular in Mt 16:18 and Mt 18:15-18.

 

[Good_Fella]

Please tell us why 2 Popes condemned the Transitus Beatae Mariae literature considering its only topic is the “assumption” of Mary?

What evidence allows you to state that the “assumption” was a “wide spread and long standing christian belief”?

The “Pope Gelasian Decree”, for instance, nowhere condemns belief in the Assumption as heretical. What is rejected is the authenticity of authorship. The ‘TBM’ was not considered a work of divine inspiration. But neither was it demed a heretical work. The rejection of the ‘TBM’ does not necessarily mean that the Assumption of Mary is untrue. The Church rejected the infancy Gospel of Thomas which describes the Holy Family’s Flight into Egypt, but the rejection of this text does not mean that the flight into Egypt did not happen. Similarily, the non-canonical Gospel of Mary (Magdalen) presents the account of Christ’s Resurrection as an incorporeal vision to the female disciple. The problem with authorship and theological conflicts with Christian belief compelled the Church to condemn this book as not of divine inspiration. The rejection of this gospel does not mean that the Resurrection did not occur according to orthodox belief. Anyway, the Gelasian Decree has nothing to do with the Assumption or Mariology. It just concerns a list of canonical versus non-canonical books while condemning heretics - but not for belief in the Assumption. Please read the decree yourself. The other pope’s decree is essentially no different in theme.

Belief in the Assumption can be traced to the earliest days of the Church. A first century work attributed to St. Denis the Aeropagite entitled ‘The Book of Divine Names’ records a funeral panegyric of a so-called Hierotheos. who claimed that the apostles found Mary’s tomb empty after holding a three day vigil there when they wanted to show St. Thomas her body. This text is the result of a legend that had been orally circulated in Palestine after this event supposedly took place. The relative silence which contributed to no written account given by the apostles themselves can partly be explained by the fact that none of them actually witnessed Mary’s Assumption as they did the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus. The Apostles and the the unripe infant Church had only an empty tomb on which to rest their private beliefs. The Assumption of Mary was a private affair kept strictly between Jesus and his mother as was the Annunciation at the immediate time of that event.

Prayer and devotion to Mary can be traced back to Apostolic time and is historically evident through the first two centuries. This would not be the case if Christians had believed Mary laid in a tomb. And if she had laid in a tomb, the form of devotion would have radically differed: pilgrimages would have been made there and her remains venerated, just as the apostles had honoured her body for three days before they discovered the tomb empty during their vigil. On the contrary, the apostles and their disciples contributed to the start of Marian devotion in the Church as they brought the Gospel to new lands. According to tradition in the East, the oldest Church with a Marian title was founded by St.Peter himself on the coast of Phoenecia: Our Lady of Tortosa. It is said that John founded a Church in Lydda which had a picture of Mary painted on one of its pillars. St. Luke painted a picture of Mary for the cathedral in Antioch. Yet we have no record of the apostles and the faithful venerating the remains of Mary at her tomb. The tomb was empty, as it still is.

That Marian prayer and devotion had also existed in the West during the first two centuries is historically evident in the frescoes found in the catacombs. There were no oratories and chapels built in honour of Mary in Rome, unlike in the East, because of the firece persecutions in the West. These frescoes depict Mary either with or without her Son. One image is of Mary as the ‘orans’, the woman in prayer who prays for us. A frescoe found in the catacombs of St.Agnes depicts Mary prominently situated between St.Peter and St.Paul with her arms outstretched to both. This image invokes Mary as Mother of the Church and acknowledges her central maternal role in God’s plan for our salvation through the Church. There are frescoes which express the belief that Mary protects us, defends us, and intercedes for us. The early Christians in the catacombs clearly prayed to Mary for her gracious assistance, protection, and intercession. The art of the West and the architecture of the East show that the early Christians believed Mary was in heaven with her Son as our Queen Mother.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[andzy]

Good Fella, don’t bother. Kaycee has been repeating the same question over and over again multiple times on several threads. So I don’t think there’s any willingness to hear the answer…

 

[Good_Fella]

What evidence allows you to state that the “assumption” was a “wide spread and long standing christian belief”?

Clearly that is refuted by Ephanius in 377 who lived near Palestine and says plainly that no one knows what happend to Mary.

The first mention of Mary’s fate is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. **He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ **

That is true. Not one Christian “knew” what actually happened to Mary, because her Assumption into heaven was not witnessed and recorded like the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus. Our Lord received Mary in the solitude of her tomb, as Mary received our Lord in the solitude of her womb. I doubt Epiphanius was the only Christian who “believed” in Mary’s Assumption. He said in 377 A.D.: “Let them search the scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. More than that: John journeyed to Asia, yet nowhere do we read that he took the holy Virgin with him. Rather, scripture is silent [on Mary’s end] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men…Neither do I maintain stoutly that she died…Did she die? We do not know. At all events, if she was buried, she had no carnal intercourse…Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and he can do whatever he desires.”
( ‘Panarion’, haer.78,nn.10-11,23: G.C.S.,37, 461-462;474)

Epiphanius shared a belief in the Assumption. He tells us that we mustn’t deny the reality of this event because it isn’t recorded in the scriptures. On the contrary, the omnipotence of God gives cause for this belief. Either Mary was assumed without having died, or she did die but was spared the corruption of the grave. Epiphanius personally believed that she was taken to heaven without having died first. Note he even questions the absence of evidence that she was even buried. Let us keep in mind that John tells us in his gospel not everything Jesus did has been recorded. This could include the miraculous Assumption of his mother, whose body has simply vanished without a trace.

After the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, his Apostles began to spread the Good News throughout Israel and then throughout the Roman empire. The apostle James the Greater reportedly travelled as far west as Spain to the village of Saragossa. Tradition tells us that while he was discouraged and deep in prayer the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to him and gave him a small wooden statue of herself and a column of jasper wood instructing him to build a church in her honour. She said to him,“This place is to be my house, and this image and column shall be the title and altar of the temple you shall build.” The jasper column and the wooden statue can still be seen on special occasions at a church that houses them. About a year after that Marian apparition, the first one in Church history, James arranged to build a chapel in Mary’s honour, the first existing church dedicated to her. James then returned to Jerusalem, where he was executed by Herod Agrippa about 44 A.D. Mary, invoked as Our Lady of the Pillar, appeared to James in 40 A.D. Reports of this event throughout the empire must have served to give rise to a prevalent belief among the faithful in Mary’s mysterious Assumption. Pilgrimages to the chapel in Saragossa continue to this day.

“The Mighty One has done great things for me
and holy is His name.” ( Luke 1:49)

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

Let me give you example of where these marian doctrines lead catholics and why this is such a problem for protestants. I’d like to know what you think of this:
This is from St. Alphonsus Liguori in his The Glories of Mary
Wilt thou endure to see a servant of thine who loves thee lost? O Mary, what sayest thou? ** I shall be lost if I abandon **thee. But who can ever more have the heart to leave thee? How can I ever forget the love thou hast born me? My lady, since thou hast done so much to save me, complete the work, continue the aid, continue to help me. But what do I say if at a time when I live forgetful of thee? Thou didst favor me so much, how much more may I not hope for now that I love thee and recommend myself to thee. No, he can never be lost who recommends himself to thee, he alone is lost who has not recourse to thee. Ah, my mother, leave me not in my own hands, for I shall then be lost. Grant that I may also have recourse to thee, save me, my hope, save me from hell, but in the first place, save me from sin which alone can condemn me.”

Is it Mary that saves from hell? Are those who have no recourse to her lost?

I will answer your question with a like question:

1 Cor 9:22-23
22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."

Is it Paul that saves? Is he “all things to all men”?

Jude 22-23
2 And convince some, who doubt; 23 save some, by snatching them out of the fire; on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."

Does the Apostle Jude here imply that his readers are able to save other people from the fire of hell, or to have mercy on others?

2 Thess 3:7
For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us"

Is the imitation of Mary any more outrageous than the imitation of Paul? Why does he say this? 2 Thess 3:9 " to give you in our conduct an example to imitate."

If we follow those who have already successfully followed Christ, then we will find ourselves following Christ. There is no distinction between the two. We do not emulate Mary “instead” of Christ, but an example of how we can become fully in Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Let me give you example of where these marian doctrines lead catholics and why this is such a problem for protestants. I’d like to know what you think of this:
This is from St. Alphonsus Liguori in his The Glories of Mary
Wilt thou endure to see a servant of thine who loves thee lost? O Mary, what sayest thou? ** I shall be lost if I abandon **thee. But who can ever more have the heart to leave thee? How can I ever forget the love thou hast born me? My lady, since thou hast done so much to save me, complete the work, continue the aid, continue to help me. But what do I say if at a time when I live forgetful of thee? Thou didst favor me so much, how much more may I not hope for now that I love thee and recommend myself to thee. No, he can never be lost who recommends himself to thee, he alone is lost who has not recourse to thee. Ah, my mother, leave me not in my own hands, for I shall then be lost. Grant that I may also have recourse to thee, save me, my hope, save me from hell, but in the first place, save me from sin which alone can condemn me.”

Is it Mary that saves from hell? Are those who have no recourse to her lost?

I will answer your question with a like question:

1 Cor 9:22-23
22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."

Is it Paul that saves? Is he “all things to all men”?

Jude 22-23
2 And convince some, who doubt; 23 save some, by snatching them out of the fire; on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."

Does the Apostle Jude here imply that his readers are able to save other people from the fire of hell, or to have mercy on others?

2 Thess 3:7
For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us"

Is the imitation of Mary any more outrageous than the imitation of Paul? Why does he say this? 2 Thess 3:9 " to give you in our conduct an example to imitate."

If we follow those who have already successfully followed Christ, then we will find ourselves following Christ. There is no distinction between the two. We do not emulate Mary “instead” of Christ, but an example of how we can become fully in Christ.

Please help my twisted mind. What is St Ligori saying here?
Is he not saying that Mary saves him from hell? Is not this idea reflected in the hail Mary?

Mary knows how to best find the saving hand of Christ, having held it for longer than all of us. Why not ask her for a hand up? It is no more Mary saving than Paul, or the readers of Jude.

Heb 13:7

7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith."

Does this mean we do not imitate Christ, or that we don’t think it is Christ who saves? No, it means we recognize that Jesus allows his loved one’s to share in the ministry of reconciling souls to God.

 

[guanophore]

From Messianic Psalm 69:
Ps 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.
9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me (referred to in the NT - Ro 15:3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.)

John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

Mr 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Not only do we have a problem with the teachings surrounding Mary (Assumption/perpetual virginty, etc.) but we also take issue with praying TO her and consecrating oneself to her. It goes far beyond asking her to pray for you.

I strongly suggest you avoid any such consecration, in that case, since for you, it would be a sin!

James 4:17
17 Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin."