CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[Realcatholicgk]

Howdy

I know there’s no eyewitness account in scripture of Mary’s assumption, but just wondering if there’s any tradition that says so and so many people witnessed her assumption at a particular
location.

**NO!I like the easy ones! **

 

[justasking4]

Correct. We are not saying it based on “Biblical bounds”.

If not based on Scripture then what is it based on? When and where is it first mentioned?

 

[Realcatholicgk]

I have my personal interpretation just as you have yours.

Hi, JA4 How are you? Yes you do indeed have your personal interpretation, but “we” the Catholics don’t. We have the Catholic interpretation, not our own. Someone would have to be a complete idiot to think they could interpret the bible on their own…Errrr I meant that in all christian love and charity! We don’t believe in Sola Scriptura sweetheart! We trust our church not to lie to us, After all it is guided by the HS and He can’t lie!

Do you mean that when you read Matthew 5 for example you read it through your “Sacred Tradition glasses”. How do you do this?

JA4, Oh, don’t pay any attention to that! [Memo to self: At the secret Catholic Meeting Tonight, remind AshleyBelle that the Protestants don’t know about our “Sacred Tradition glasses!” and that It is a RCC secret! ]

How do you know it does not contradict these various examples if the “Tradition” is unwritten and oral? How can you know what unwritten and oral tradition is if you have no proof of what it is?

**Excellent point! But I am Not sure exactly what you meant. Can you clarify? **Where does it say that in scripture? Do you have a reference?

---

My personal interpretation could be off because i don’t have enough background to understand a particular passage or verse.

You are too modest! I like you so much! Intelligent, crafty, demented in a cute way! Then don’t use that as a defense as something that has substance. You realize that what you are saying here and throughout this post are assumptions? I can’t think of any teaching in the Scriptures where that is said…Who does this apply to? How are we as individuals to apply this to ourselves? Should we?

If you are referring to the traditions that Paul mentions in 2 Thes 2:15 he does not specifically mention what these traditions of his he is referring to. Secondly, he never mentions anything in his writings about Mary being assumed, queen of heaven or praying to her.

You realize that what you are saying here and throughout this post are assumptions? You must for example know that our Oral and written traditions teach that she is the mother of catholics and has power to help us here. Of course we always said there is no such portrait of Mary in the scriptures like this, that is what makes Catholics so special. God teaches us many things that protestants should never know! How do you know our teachings contradicts those various examples if the “Tradition” is unwritten and oral?

 

[Ag_not]

That’s a goood thing

so her assumption is based on *connections *in the scripture

from Catholic.com - the complete answer on the assumption and all you’ll ever need to know on it:

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). **The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true **(cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

I can hear justasking4 screaming from here

 

[Realcatholicgk]

from Catholic.com - the complete answer on the assumption and all you’ll ever need to know on it:

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). **The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true **(cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

I can hear justasking4 screaming from here
Nope, she will say something like “I can’t think of any teaching in the Scriptures where this is said. Do you have a reference?” When she does say “Yea, Hold your breath, I’ll be right back!” freesmileys.org/smileys/angelic002.gif

---

 

[sodak]

If not based on Scripture then what is it based on? When and where is it first mentioned?

I’m not answering any of your questions until you answer mine.

 

[Henning]

from Catholic.com - the complete answer on the assumption and all you’ll ever need to know on it:

The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). **The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true **(cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

I can hear justasking4 screaming from here

oh…right (I still have issues with the whole CC infallibility thing, its a struggle). But can assume she was assumed because ‘the wages of sin is death’ and since she was sinless therefore she couldn’t die?? or

 

[Ag_not]

oh…right (I still have issues with the whole CC infallibility thing, its a struggle). But can assume she was assumed because ‘the wages of sin is death’ and since she was sinless therefore she couldn’t die?? or

The Catholic church doesnt actually teach that Mary did not die. It is generally assumed She did, but this is not known as a fact. But her assumption into Heaven means her body was not corrupted by the results of sin. All things will come to an end. The Church fathers refer to her earthly life ending, not her ‘‘dying’’. It’s subtle.

But everything about the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother makes perfect sense.

The CRITICAL issue is that what the Church teaches DOES NOT CONTRADICT scripture.

The fact the Bible remains silent on the matter does NOT mean it did not happen.

Not once, ever, in the Bible are we told that Jesus or the Apostles went to the toilet. The Bible is completely silent on the matter.

Sola Scriptura would have all our orifices sown up

 

[justasking4]

Realcatholicgk;4394366]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I have my personal interpretation just as you have yours.

Hi, JA4 How are you?

Fine. Thank you for asking…

Yes you do indeed have your personal interpretation, but “we” the Catholics don’t. We have the Catholic interpretation, not our own.

True you do have your Catholic interpretations which are your own personal interpetations. You can take a number of doctrines that the Catholic church has stated and have a number of different interpetations by various catholics. Secondly, you do not have an offical-infallible interpretation of the Scriptures since your church has never produced such a work. That means you must interpret Scripture without knowing with certainty you have the right interpretation.

Someone would have to be a complete idiot to think they could interpret the bible on their own…

Why do you think a person cannot be trained to interpret the Scriptures? Does not the Catholic church teach its bishops how to interpret the Scriptures? Can’t you go to a Catholic seminary or college to learn how to do this?

Errrr I meant that in all christian love and charity! We don’t believe in Sola Scriptura sweetheart! We trust our church not to lie to us, After all it is guided by the HS and He can’t lie!

justasking4
Do you mean that when you read Matthew 5 for example you read it through your “Sacred Tradition glasses”. How do you do this?

JA4, Oh, don’t pay any attention to that! [Memo to self: At the secret Catholic Meeting Tonight, remind AshleyBelle that the Protestants don’t know about our “Sacred Tradition glasses!” and that It is a RCC secret! ]

I’'ll take this to mean you don’t know…

justasking4
How do you know it does not contradict these various examples if the “Tradition” is unwritten and oral? How can you know what unwritten and oral tradition is if you have no proof of what it is?
Realcatholicgk
Excellent point! But I am Not sure exactly what you meant. Can you clarify? Where does it say that in scripture? Do you have a reference?

Again you show you can’t answer this…

justasking4
My personal interpretation could be off because i don’t have enough background to understand a particular passage or verse.
Realcatholicgk
You are too modest! I like you so much! Intelligent, crafty, demented in a cute way! Then don’t use that as a defense as something that has substance. You realize that what you are saying here and throughout this post are assumptions? I can’t think of any teaching in the Scriptures where that is said…Who does this apply to? How are we as individuals to apply this to ourselves? Should we?

My point is that no man, pope, council etc is infallible. There has only been One Who has lived that can make this claim.

justasking4
If you are referring to the traditions that Paul mentions in 2 Thes 2:15 he does not specifically mention what these traditions of his he is referring to. Secondly, he never mentions anything in his writings about Mary being assumed, queen of heaven or praying to her.

Realcatholicgk
You realize that what you are saying here and throughout this post are assumptions?

These are not assumptions. We can easily check the Scriptures to see what traditions Paul is referring to.

You must for example know that our Oral and written traditions teach that she is the mother of catholics and has power to help us here.

What “oral Tradition” are you referring to? Who spoke this?

Of course we always said there is no such portrait of Mary in the scriptures like this, that is what makes Catholics so special. God teaches us many things that protestants should never know! How do you know our teachings contradicts those various examples if the “Tradition” is unwritten and oral?

This question is what you must answer. How can you know what is unwritten and oral Tradition if there is no record of it?

 

[davidv]

{snip}

This question is what you must answer. How can you know what is unwritten and oral Tradition if there is no record of it?

How is one to answer a question that has so many strings attached?

How do you know there is no record of “it”? And, what constitutes a “record”? What constituted a “record” before the advent of writing?

 

[AshleyBelle]

The Catholic church doesnt actually teach that Mary did not die. It is generally assumed She did, but this is not known as a fact. But her assumption into Heaven means her body was not corrupted by the results of sin. All things will come to an end. The Church fathers refer to her earthly life ending, not her ‘‘dying’’. It’s subtle.

But everything about the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother makes perfect sense.

The CRITICAL issue is that what the Church teaches DOES NOT CONTRADICT scripture.

The fact the Bible remains silent on the matter does NOT mean it did not happen.

Not once, ever, in the Bible are we told that Jesus or the Apostles went to the toilet. The Bible is completely silent on the matter.

Sola Scriptura would have all our orifices sown up

Oh dear goodness! I seriously choked reading that!!!

Hubby and I are still LOL!!! Bless you! hahahaha!!!

 

[Ag_not]

This question is what you must answer. How can you know what is unwritten and oral Tradition if there is no record of it?

Because it is passed on, passed down through the ages, that is what oral tradition is!!!

I know something that my greatgrandfather did.

It’s not written down anywhere.

But there were several witnesses to him doing this.

And the story got passed down as a kind of legend.

Others know of this event also.

They werent there.

But their story, as told by their families matches the story I had handed down to me.

Can I be sure my greatgrandfather did this?

Of course I can.

Can I find a written record of it? Nope.

Will I tell my children if Im blessed with them?

Of course I will…

… that’s how oral tradition works, see?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

What 2-3 questions pointed holes in your theology?

There was a thread awhile back asking converts why they became Catholic. Do a search for something like “Former Protestants” and you’ll see my answer.

 

[Henning]

The Catholic church doesnt actually teach that Mary did not die. It is generally assumed She did, but this is not known as a fact. But her assumption into Heaven means her body was not corrupted by the results of sin. All things will come to an end. The Church fathers refer to her earthly life ending, not her ‘‘dying’’. It’s subtle.

so she ended not by not dying, with her body not corrupting and then assumed…but why, may I humbly ask, does she have to go through all this (I should read through the thread ). She didn’t go through rigor mortis because she sinned not. Why can’t she sin?

 

[Ag_not]

so she ended not by not dying, with her body not corrupting and then assumed…but why, may I humbly ask, does she have to go through all this (I should read through the thread ). She didn’t go through rigor mortis because she sinned not. Why can’t she sin?

Because She is full of Grace. (note - NOT highly favored) !

Beacuse She was conceived without sin.

Because She is the Mother of God.

And DONT get into the Pauline all have sinned malarkey !!

From Davidmacd.com

Catholics believe that Mary was saved by God from sin, but in a preventative way. Art Sippo puts it this way:

Catholic Christianity does believe that Mary was a sinner. Not an **ACTUAL **sinner, but a POTENTIAL sinner who was redeemed by God from the moment of her conception so that she never fell into sin. So yes, Mary was redeemed, but she was also predestined by God to bear his Son and so she was upheld from falling into sin.

The following is an imperfect analogy. Imagine I am parachuting and falling through the air into quicksand. Suddenly, a gust of wind comes along and blows me away from the quicksand. I would say that at the moment of conception all human beings fall into a pit of quicksand called original sin. But in Mary’s case God intervened and protected her from this at the moment of her conception by the merits of Jesus. She has no power or merit of her own that prevented her from falling into the quicksand of original sin. It was Divine Mercy which was preparing a place for the Incarnation. God was preparing an Ark of the Covenant to carry the Word of God.

 

[davidcoit]

Were these men infallible and incapable of erring in their beliefs? The Marian dogmas were not the focus of the great Prostestant Reformantion as far as i can tell and these reformers were still influenced by their catholicism as far as i can tell. This would help to explain why they wrote about her as they did.

:banghead: :banghead:

 

[Henning]

Catholic Christianity does believe that Mary was a sinner. Not an **ACTUAL **sinner, but a POTENTIAL sinner

who was redeemed by God from the moment of her conception so that she never fell into sin. So yes, Mary was redeemed, but she was also predestined by God to bear his Son and so she was upheld from falling into sin.

The following is an imperfect analogy. Imagine I am parachuting and falling through the air into quicksand. Suddenly, a gust of wind comes along and blows me away from the quicksand. I would say that at the moment of conception all human beings fall into a pit of quicksand called original sin. But in Mary’s case God intervened and protected her from this at the moment of her conception by the merits of Jesus. She has no power or merit of her own that prevented her from falling into the quicksand of original sin. It was Divine Mercy which was preparing a place for the Incarnation. God was preparing an Ark of the Covenant to carry the Word of God.

why does her ‘ark’ (‘arkness’) need to be free from sin in order to bear Jesus who himself is free from sin ?

 

[Realcatholicgk]

If not based on Scripture then what is it based on? When and where is it first mentioned?

'**'Hi sweetheart,

Boy, I am so glad that you asked this question! I just knew someone would ask it eventually. Thank goodness it wasn’t one of the “others”, you know the ones I mean! freesmileys.org/smileys/whacky115.gif** The fools who when we explain things will ignore the answer and ask the same questions over and over again! How stupid can they be? At least I know that when I answer you that won’t happen. You are smart and can understand. You are too intelligent to do anything that stupid!
Ready? The belief in the Assumption can be traced to the earliest days of the Church. We call on both Oral and Written Sacred Tradition. 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 Sacred Written Traditional document might be the result of an older legend that had been orally circulated in Palestine after this alleged event took place. We aren’t actually sure. We think that the relative silence by the apostles, which helped contribute to no written account being given until later can be explained partly by the fact that none of them actually witnessed Mary’s Assumption as they did the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus. myself, I personally think they were too busy saving souls plus they realized that Jesus so Loved His mother that he would take care of her. And He sure did! What a Son, Mary really was Blessed! I hope this information helps you know the truth. I know how serious you are in your desire to find out the truth!

St. Epiphanius (d. 403), even before the Council of Ephesus said: “Let Mary be held in honour. Let the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be adored, but let no one adore Mary” Needles to say us catholics took his words to heart. Even though there did seem to be some mysterious dispensation with regard to her death implied in the words: “And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle that she might fly into the desert unto her place.” --Rev 12:14.
Then we have the “Transitus Sanctae Mariae” document, which some people foolishly have said was condemned! It is their foolish souls that will be condemned is the feeling of right thinking christians. I am glad you aren’t one of “them”. You and I realize that, although not part of the canon listed in the Pope Gelasian Decree, it wasn’t condemned as these fools often said!
In 377AD, St. Epiphanius said: “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.”
So being smart like you, Catholics stopped looking! Now some nuts, from the corruption which happened in the 1500s, start looking in the scriptures again and again. They seem to be “surprised” when there isn’t anything there! We knew that since 377 AD. I know, we actually should tell them about Sacred Oral and Written Tradition, but if we did that they would ask stupid questions about them also, so why bother?

OK Honey, I hope those things help you. Feel free to share with the “others” but be prepared to hear stupid things like:

Not sure what you are saying. Can you clarify? This is not based on Scripture then what is it based on? When and where is it first mentioned?

Just be strong and remember what Jesus said in Mt 16:18-19. That the gates of hell will NOT prevail against Jesus’ church and where Jesus says He will protect the universal church from formal error. We will win!
freesmileys.org/smileys/violent088.gif
God Bless

 

[Realcatholicgk]

why does her ‘ark’ (‘arkness’) need to be free from sin in order to bear Jesus who himself is free from sin ?

**Because God said It would? I love the easy answers! **

 

[Ag_not]

why does her ‘ark’ (‘arkness’) need to be free from sin in order to bear Jesus who himself is free from sin ?

Jesus was fully Divine AND fully HUMAN.

If Mary was not conceived sinless then original sin, as passed from the parent to the child, would have been passed to the human Jesus also.

With a sinless Mother and conceived of the Holy Ghost, Jesus could thus remain outside of sin, while being born as human to redeem us of ours.

So Mary HAD to be sinless and pure in order to give birth to Jesus.