I can explain it just fine. That’s not my point.
none of them were assumed
catholics are only one type of christians u know?
You started the forum to challenge the Assumption of Mary on the sole premise that it is not found explicitly in Scripture.look. if someone randomly states something and they have no reason for their stataments, dont u think they ought to be the ones to explain? and plus its my post
Elijah was assumed. Why him and not the Apostles?
What is this supposed to mean?
Because the Ark is a “type” or “foreshadowing” of what was to come. The vessel that carried the Word of God. Jesus is also reffered to as the “Word” in scripture.
What Church? Well, there is only one Church and that is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, right? Well, that’s the Church we are referring to.
Well, Catholics did exist from the very beginning. The Church that Christ created is the Catholic Church. Of course they weren’t a denomination during that time - they just were. It is after the reformation that various denominations started appearing. But still, the Catholic Church church isn’t a denomination now because they represent the Church and not a church withing the Church.
He loved her, she was his mother and she was sinless. Of course he didn’t have to do that, we aren’t saying that. He however did that because of his love to this most perfect creature.
It is hinted but tell me, why is it that the Trinity isn’t mentioned? Oh, and what about Sola Scriptura? If Sola Scriptura is one of the most important doctrines why doesn’t the Bible speak about it but rather suggests otherwise?
Luke 1:48
So? What does that have to do with whether Mary would be looked upon more favourable as the the “Mother of our Lord”.
That’s a food for thought…
No, the Church wasn’t corrupt. Sure, some bishops and clergy were roccut but not the Church. Or are you suggesting that one feature of the Church is sinlessness of it’s members? No it’s not. The people were on the right journey when they saw the corruption but then they failed their mission when they broke from the One Church.
True, people coudn’t read. So, tell me, what impact does this statement has on Sola Scriptira? That it coudn’t have been practiced for centuries? And if it coudn’t have been practiced how can you even argue that it’s the will of God? No, it wasn’t. It was the Church. And if you think of it that was actually the only was to spread christianity.
Yes, unfortunatelly they indeed broke from the Church.
Well, this is in a way true. If you were baptised then you are a Christian even thought you aren’t Catholic. You are still nevertheless in a way part of the Catholic Church because of your baptism.
What Church? There is only one Church founded by Christ. It is the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is the Universal Church founded by Christ.
Which post asserts (3) from (1) and (2)? I haven’t seen it.
(Well, except for first premise). But there’s a little more to it as to “WHY” and here it is:
Steve Ray just addressed the Assumption in a new paper posted on his website:
Is the Transitus beatae Mariae of Pseudo-Melito of Gnostic origin?kc << Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian >>
William Webster is simply lying about Juniper Carol. I’ve had the photocopied sections of his Mariology (3 volumes) on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption for a number of years, and only recently typed up the sections on the Assumption. What Fr. Burghardt says (he is the author of the articles in those volumes on the eastern and western Fathers on Mary, not Juniper Carol who is the editor of the volumes) is that the Transitus is “valueless” as strict history, but nonetheless significant and priceless both historically and theologically. Here is what Webster does not and won’t quote:
Burghardt: “This account is significant, in the first instance, because it affirms unequivocally the death and burial of Mary, the reunion of her soul and body without delay, and her assumption into heaven in soul and body. It is significant, in the second place, for the developed Assumption theology which links this privilege causally with Mary’s Maternity and virginity, and stresses the parallelism which ought to exist between Christ and His Mother in victory over death. The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste. But the account is priceless nonetheless – historically and theologically. Historically, because it witnesses indisputably to the feeling of the faithful for Mary, a growing awareness of her dignity, even though we are unable to specify the full range of this awareness geographically or even to indicate its dawning. Theologically, because it postulates the Assumption on grounds that are valid not simply for piety but for scientific theology as well.” (Carol Mariology, volume 1, page 149-150, emphasis added)
Burghardt: “What is the value of these witnesses? As historical accounts of an actual event – Mary’s death, her translation, her Assumption – by individuals who were personally present, or else were in contact with the events through unimpeachable sources, the Transitus literature is valueless. But theologically the tales are priceless. They reveal the reaction of early Christian piety when confronted with the apparent fact of Our Lady’s death; they evidence the first unequivocal solutions to the problem of Mary’s destiny. The solutions, though divergent, disclose a genuinely Christian insight: it was not fitting that the body of Mary should see corruption. More importantly, the solution is given, incorruption is postulated, on theological lines: the principles of solution are the divine Maternity, Mary’s unimpaired virginity, her unrivaled holiness…” (Carol Mariology, volume 2, page 145-146, see above, emphasis added)
That is what Juniper Carol says (specifically Fr. Burghardt) and you and Webster can now apologize to Carol and Burghardt. This goes to show – you cannot trust William Webster. Look up what he quotes, please!
For a scholarly treatment of the so-called “Transitus literature” you want to get Shoemaker’s thorough study Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford Univ Press, 2006 paperback). And throw Webster into the garbage can where he belongs.
Phil P
That works! Thanks Phil.<< I don’t know if any of you have ever taken a logic class, but there’s something seriously wrong with this. >>
Fine, let’s forget that logic. Try this one:
(1) Jesus founded the Catholic Church to teach the truth in His name (John 14:16f; 16:13f; Matt 16:18f; 28:18ff; 1 Tim 3:15; etc).
(2) The Catholic Church teaches the Assumption is true dogma.
(3) Therefore, Mary was Assumed body and soul into Heaven.
This one doesn’t refer to Scripture at all.
The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
To quote Steve Ray’s review of this article: “For those who want to get into the real nitty-gritty of the dogma of the Assumption – its sources, history, detailed dates and names, opposition, etc. – visit this web page ’The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.' Actually I could have just cut and pasted this article and used it as my explanation, but here it is for your enjoyment and edification.”
Luckily I just got it done in time for Steve Ray to see it, in his response to White’s blog. Also this article destroys the nonsense of Bill Webster linked earlier about the so-called “Transitus” and “Pope Gelasius” (hint: it probably wasn’t Pope Gelasius anyway).
Phil P
