CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[Realcatholicgk]

:banghead: :banghead:

Want to borrow this? freesmileys.org/smileys/angry021.gif

 

[Ag_not]

Want to borrow this? freesmileys.org/smileys/angry021.gif

I actually think justasking4 has the making of a wonderful catholic. Just as soon as she can learn to let go and trust.

justasking4 - the last time you caught a plane - did you see the pilot?

Did you read her/his training manual?

Did you interview them to assess their experience?

Did you present 100 scenarios to them and grade their answers?

Heck, did you even know that the person in the cockpit was even a pilot or that they had ever flown a plane in their lives?

Course you didn’t. You just took your seat, tightened your belt, and enjoyed the excitement of defying logic and physics and flying through the air.

You trusted. You trusted a complete and total and unseen unknown stranger with your life.

Now if you could just trust the catholic church as much as you trusted that pilot you’ll have the ride of your life - and land safely in heaven

 

[guanophore]

Here is the full comment that i posted that will help us to understand if your comment to it is valid. I wrote :
“You realize that what you are saying here and throughout this post are assumptions? You must for example assume that she is the mother of catholics and has power to help you here. There is no such potrait of Mary in the scriptures like this.”

We look to the Scriptures and is there any mention in them in any verse that she is the helper of Christians and she is to be prayed to? There is none. Now if the Catholic church says she is then they are not going by the Scriptures but something else…

No, ja4. We don’t have to choose, like you do. We go by the Scripture, and the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

We read it differently because we read it according to the mindset of those who wrote it.

I agree with much you write here. However it cannot be claimed that Mary was assumned into heaven on Bbilical grounds is to speculate. It is also not mentioned for centuries.

No, ja4, we don’t have to “speculate” about things that God has revealed. Granted, they are mysteries, because they are still beyond the capability of our puny human minds, but that is why our faith is based on Revelation. We claim that Mary was assumed on the grounds that Her Divine Son loved her, and it has been mentioned since the book of Genesis!

I have my personal interpretation just as you have yours.

No, ja4, this is not the case. Your personal interpretation is a world different. We interpret based on the paradosis, the Sacred Treaching handed down to us from the Apostles. It is not “personal”, but belongs to the Church. It was not to individuals that God promised the gift of infallibility, but to His Bride, the Church. It is only when we are in unity with her teachings that we can benefit from that infallibility.

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

By receiving the paradosis.

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?

Because our faith, unlike yours, is not based on “proof” but on faith. We receive that which was given in faith, by faith. We trust that Jesus meant what He said, and that He has preserved the Apostles and their successors in "all truth’.

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

Yes, just as could any individual, Catholic or otherwise. This is why Jesus appointed a teaching authority, to keep us from getting too far astray.

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.

He does not need to spell them out, because they were preserved in the Church by the power of the Holy Spirit, just like the letter he was writing was preserved. Both sources were considered equal in authority and value.

Secondly, he never mentions anything in his writings about Mary being assumed, queen of heaven or praying to her.

Luke accompanied Paul for the majority of his travels, and commits much of what he learned from Paul to writing in his gospel and the book of Acts. His work was informed by many years of listening to Paul’s preaching. Paul was powerful in seeing the shadows of the OT revealed in the new. This is why Luke did such a great job of making the parallel of Mary to the Ark of the Covenant.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

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

Read in the OT about the Ark of the Covenant. Lots of parallels between that and Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[Henning]

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.

so in a way the requirement that Jesus be free from original sin
gives rise to the assumption…ie,

Jesus free from original sin > so Mary had to be in sinless condition to bear him > she remained sinless > she ended > upon ending, her body remains free from corruption because she had no sin > without corruption she could be assumed, and was assumed.

(I think I have the connections correct ?)

 

[guanophore]

True you do have your Catholic interpretations which are your own personal interpetations.

No, ja4, this is not the case. While it is true that individual Catholics can (and do) have personal interpretations, they are not necessarily the Catholic interpretations. This is what differentiates us. We have a standard outside of ourselves, protected by the HS that prevents disunity.

You can take a number of doctrines that the Catholic church has stated and have a number of different interpetations by various catholics.

Yes, this is true. But none of those personal opinions will in any way change the Doctrines, which are from Christ, and therefore, immutable.

Secondly, you do not have an offical-infallible interpretation of the Scriptures since your church has never produced such a work.

There is no need for one. The Doctrine and FAith that produced the NT has not changed, and that is why there are no contradictions between Church teaching and the scripture. We recieve the Teachings through the paradosis, and understand the Scripture in the light of them, because that is the Source from which the Scriptures were produced.

That means you must interpret Scripture without knowing with certainty you have the right interpretation.

No, we don’t . I understand why it might seem that way to you, though, since you think the paradosis does not exist.

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?

These are all excellent questions, but I think I will not address them because I cannot see that they have anything to do with the topic.

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

Thank goodness That One is faithful, and keeps HIs very great and precious promises. Without His infallibility, the Church would have fallen into error long ago!

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

I just read where you said that we didn’t know which ones he was talking about?

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

No, ja4, we don’t need that answer, because we do have records of it. It is you who are in a quandary about this, since you do not accept the evidence.

 

[Ag_not]

so in a way the requirement that Jesus be free from original sin
gives rise to the assumption…ie,

Jesus free from original sin > so Mary had to be in sinless condition to bear him > she remained sinless > she ended > upon ending, her body remains free from corruption because she had no sin > without corruption she could be assumed, and was assumed.

(I think I have the connections correct ?)

Yes but remember that Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven and they were NOT born without original sin. God is all powerful and can do and does do as He sees fit, and this does not always accord with our logic, our expectations or our desires.

So isn’t it just so fitting that given what we know of Mary, that her loving Son, who assumed two Old Testiment sinners to Heaven, would assume His sinless Mother, who bore Him, and played a critical role in God’s plan for the salvation of mankind.

 

[guanophore]

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?

She could have sinned. Eve was created without original sin, just like Mary, and Eve chose to sin. Mary chose not to sin. That is why she is our role model. Jesus wants all of us, by the power of the HS in us, to cease from sin.

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

She didn’t. But, that is how God decided to do it. God could have put Jesus on earth fully formed, just like He did Adam, but He wanted to take flesh from Mary’s flesh. God prefigured His coming through the incarnation in the way He directed the Ark of the Covenant to be designed and treated. This is a shadow of what He intended to do with His Son. All of the Marian Doctrines were developed out of what we know about Christ. Her immaculate conception is understood in the light of the refutations of the heresies of Gnosticism and Arianism. I think it is impossible to understand the Marian doctrines without understanding the heresies which spawned the development of the doctrines related to the incarnation.

 

[Henning]

Yes but remember that Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven and they were NOT born without original sin. God is all powerful and can do and does do as He sees fit, and this does not always accord with our logic, our expectations or our desires.

So isn’t it just so fitting that given what we know of Mary, that her loving Son, who assumed two Old Testiment sinners to Heaven, would assume His sinless Mother, who bore Him, and played a critical role in God’s plan for the salvation of mankind.

So we can trust the CC’s infallible teaching on the assumption, and/but there are also logical connections as to why it comes about. Thanks Ag_not for your help. I feel like I have a million other questions but I need a coffee and a butt (smokage).

H

 

[guanophore]

I actually think justasking4 has the making of a wonderful catholic. Just as soon as she can learn to let go and trust.

justasking4 - the last time you caught a plane - did you see the pilot?

Did you read her/his training manual?

Did you interview them to assess their experience?

Did you present 100 scenarios to them and grade their answers?

Heck, did you even know that the person in the cockpit was even a pilot or that they had ever flown a plane in their lives?

Course you didn’t. You just took your seat, tightened your belt, and enjoyed the excitement of defying logic and physics and flying through the air.

You trusted. You trusted a complete and total and unseen unknown stranger with your life.

Now if you could just trust the catholic church as much as you trusted that pilot you’ll have the ride of your life - and land safely in heaven

:clapping:

I so love your posts, your way of thinking, your testimony, and you contributions here. You are truly an inspiration!

 

[Ag_not]

So we can trust the CC’s infallible teaching on the assumption, and/but there are also logical connections as to why it comes about.

Absolutely spot on

Thanks Ag_not for your help.

What!!! You mean, I actually made sense

I feel like I have a million other questions but I need a coffee and a butt (smokage).

H

You and me both, but we couldn’t be in better hands than right here on CAF

 

[Pixie_Dust]

so in a way the requirement that Jesus be free from original sin
gives rise to the assumption…ie,

Jesus free from original sin > so Mary had to be in sinless condition to bear him > she remained sinless > she ended > upon ending, her body remains free from corruption because she had no sin > without corruption she could be assumed, and was assumed.

(I think I have the connections correct ?)

Hey, pretty good!

Here are a couple of good (and free!) resources for you:

Bible Christian Society - MP3 download, Mary & the Bible (plus any others that look interesting…they’re all good!)

CatholiCity - The Truth about Mary (CD, just pay shipping)

 

[Ag_not]

:clapping:

I so love your posts, your way of thinking, your testimony, and you contributions here. You are truly an inspiration!

 

[guanophore]

so in a way the requirement that Jesus be free from original sin
gives rise to the assumption…ie,

Jesus free from original sin > so Mary had to be in sinless condition to bear him > she remained sinless > she ended > upon ending, her body remains free from corruption because she had no sin > without corruption she could be assumed, and was assumed.

(I think I have the connections correct ?)

Yes, except this is only part of the story. Mary contains the promise that has been made to all of us. She has become what God wants for all of us, to be perfected by His Spirit, and have fellowship with Him in eternity.

He also assumed others that were of “normal” human birth, such as Moses, Elijah, and Enoch.

We call it a “mystery”, because it is quite beyond our human understanding.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

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.

**Thanks JA4T1T,
:extrahappy: I needed that laugh! freesmileys.org/smileys/signs115.gif Asking a Catholic if he thought Martin Luther, John Calvin,and Huldreich Zwingli were infallible and incapable of erring in their beliefs. That is like asking a Sola Scriptura Protestant if the Pope is infallible and incapable of erring in his beliefs? Do “you” personally think any of them were infallible and incapable of erring in their beliefs? I can honestly say I think that all four of them: Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldreich Zwingli, and the Pope are all fallible and capable of erring in their personal beliefs.

Off Topic: Why did you go and “restart” this thread that was dead for almost a year? freesmileys.org/smileys/angry019.gif

**

 

[Realcatholicgk]

"Ag_not:

I actually think justasking4 has the making of a wonderful catholic. Just as soon as she can learn to let go and trust.

justasking4 - the last time you caught a plane - did you see the pilot?

Did you read her/his training manual?

Did you interview them to assess their experience?

Did you present 100 scenarios to them and grade their answers?

Heck, did you even know that the person in the cockpit was even a pilot or that they had ever flown a plane in their lives?

Course you didn’t. You just took your seat, tightened your belt, and enjoyed the excitement of defying logic and physics and flying through the air.

You trusted. You trusted a complete and total and unseen unknown stranger with your life.

Now if you could just trust the catholic church as much as you trusted that pilot you’ll have the ride of your life - and land safely in heaven

:clapping:

I so love your posts, your way of thinking, your testimony, and you contributions here. You are truly an inspiration!

**AMEN! I mean that for both of you. **
freesmileys.org/smileys/bounce017.gif freesmileys.org/smileys/bounce017.gif freesmileys.org/smileys/bounce017.gif freesmileys.org/smileys/bounce017.gif freesmileys.org/smileys/bounce017.gif freesmileys.org/smileys/bounce017.giffreesmileys.org/smileys/bounce017.gif

 

[Realcatholicgk]

I actually think justasking4 has the making of a wonderful catholic. Just as soon as she can learn to let go and trust…

**Yea, I actually do also!
If I didn’t ~ I would have offered you this one: **freesmileys.org/smileys/violent007.gif

**She just needs some new questions and Faith the size of a mustard seed!

Bless you! **

 

[eva6206213]

Learning from here!

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Learning from here!

**
Eva,

Whatever happened to eva6206212 ?? **

 

[eva6206213]

What do you mean ?
happened what?
i just learning from here!
i’m a new~