Do any Protestants believe in the Assumption?

[Tis_Bearself]

The Summa is not an official statement of Church teaching.

I take it you are not Catholic or you wouldn’t be making these arguments.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Nor do any statements that you make in contradiction to Catholic Teaching.

Sigh. This has been a waste of time. Simply, put, the specific delineations as I am speaking about, have not been understood.

Are you saying that you haven’t understood them? That’s true. When we who understand respond to your question, you rebut the answer. But there’s no room for argument. That is the answer from the Catholic Church, the Pillar and Floor of the Truth.

 

[SetInMotion]

The Summa is not an official statement of Church teaching.

It has the official Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, under Sedi Sapientiae. If the Summa is not “an official statement of Church teaching”, how then can you say that the catechism has any official capacity after the same manner, and other such “Church” materials?

I cannot stand when persons throw such accepted and approved statements under the bus to merely protect something else. Categories. Declaring is not the same as knowing. Do you see this?

 

[SetInMotion]

I take it you are not Catholic

You’ll have to specifically define that.

 

[SetInMotion]

Are you saying that you haven’t understood them? That’s true. When we who understand respond to your question, you rebut the answer. But there’s no room for argument. That is the answer from the Catholic Church, the Pillar and Floor of the Truth.

Notice, the argument is about “category.” The argument was not that “the Church” doesn’t “declare” it to be so. I am making the case about the distinct difference between “knowing” vs “declaring”.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Priests and theologians who know more about Catholic Doctrine than you.

Again, this is an erroneous assumption. I used to specifically work for a (not to be named) ministry, that specializes in the saints, miracles, visions, etc as EWTN called ‘experts in their field.’

I’m sorry. But your very basic misunderstanding of infallibility and your confusing St. Thomas’ teaching as being as authoritative as the Catholic Church’s and pitting them against Catholic Doctrine proves that you are no such expert. Therefore, I do not believe you.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are not necessarily to declare Church teaching, but merely that the work does not contain anything against Church teaching.

 

[SetInMotion]

the Catholic Church’s and pitting them against Catholic Doctrine

I did no such thing. Read again.

 

[Justin_Mary]

It has the official Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, under Sedi Sapientiae.

In your mind, what do you think that means?

 

[SetInMotion]

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are not necessarily to declare Church teaching, but merely that the work does not contain anything against Church teaching.

Finally, someone understands what I stated.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur do not signify that a document is an official statement of Church teaching. They simply mean it’s okay for the faithful to read the book. I could show you thousands of books with those that are not official statements of Church teaching.

Official Church teachings are contained in the official Catechism of the Church and in infallible statements of the Magisterium, which are at this point all contained in the Catechism. The Assumption of Mary is an infallible Marian dogma that was specifically designated as such by the Vatican.

End of discussion. If you are actually interested in where Official Catholic Teaching may be found, the question has been answered. If instead you wish to keep finding things on the web and making uneducated opinion pronouncements on them, feel free. I’m out.

 

[GKMotley]

Do you think that the Imprimatur or the Nihil Obstat declare the work to be infallible? Or that awarding them is done, in itself, infallibly?

 

[SetInMotion]

In your mind, what do you think that means?

That the work contains nothing “against” “the Church” teaching, and is approved for printing as a minimum. Thus my point about distinction between categories of “declaring” and “knowing”. Some here, do not seem to be able to grasp that.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Are you saying that you haven’t understood them? That’s true. When we who understand respond to your question, you rebut the answer. But there’s no room for argument. That is the answer from the Catholic Church, the Pillar and Floor of the Truth.

Notice, the argument is about “category.” The argument was not that “the Church” doesn’t “declare” it to be so. I am making the case about the distinct difference between “knowing” vs “declaring”.

Here’s what actually happened.

Peter T said:

That’s a false statement.
The Church knows for sure that it occurred, hence it’s a dogma of the Catholic Church.

Peter T understands that an infallible statement by the Church is the TRUTH. There is no doubt there.

But you challenged the idea that a dogma of the Church is the truth by providing statements from the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Advent website. Do you deny this? Yes, you do, I just saw your response.

the Catholic Church’s and pitting them against Catholic Doctrine

You read again.

That’s a false statement.

The Church knows for sure that it occurred, hence it’s a dogma of the Catholic Church.

You call yourself an expert and you asked, " Really? What official statements do you have?"

Come on. Are you selling swamp land in Florida, too?

 

[SetInMotion]

why would a Protestant or evangelical categorically deny the Assumption of Our Lady into heaven at the time of her death?

Can we go back to the OP please? My point has been lost in the non-understanding of some.

I provided, from Martin Luther’s (a protestant) perspective, of why such would not accept. This answers, at least for a moment, why such as Martin Luther, among others, would not accept such “dogma” of “the Church”.

 

[SetInMotion]

But you challenged the idea that a dogma of the Church is the truth by providing statements from the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Advent website.

I challenged “categories” within the same “system”.

 

[De_Maria]

HomeschoolDad:

why would a Protestant or evangelical categorically deny the Assumption of Our Lady into heaven at the time of her death?

Can we go back to the OP please? My point has been lost in the non-understanding of some.

Disregard if you captured this before my edit.

I provided, from Martin Luther’s (a protestant) perspective, of why such would not accept.

Well, good. But here, you’ve labeled it a protestant perspective. Yes. I agree that is the Protestant perspective. I consider it an error. I follow Catholic Teaching.

This answers, at least for a moment, why such as Martin Luther, among others, would not accept such “dogma” of “the Church”.

For you, I suppose. I believe that Martin Luther simply wanted power and rebelled against the Church in a grab for that power.

 

[SetInMotion]

He was too proud to submit to the Teachings of Jesus Christ through the Church which He established to Teach His Word:

So you say, yet I also stated, I am not a Lutheran.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

But you challenged the idea that a dogma of the Church is the truth by providing statements from the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Advent website.

I challenged “categories” within the same “system”.

To what end? The Catholic Church’s Doctrines are infallible. She speaks with the force of Christ.

We’re talking past each other because you think that Catholic Doctrine is up for debate. But Catholic Doctrine is the Word of God.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

He was too proud to submit to the Teachings of Jesus Christ through the Church which He established to Teach His Word:

So you say, yet I also stated, I am not a Lutheran.

Why does that matter? Aren’t you challenging Catholic Doctrine?