Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mcq72 said:
Correct, and I am not bound to his private revelation on the matter.
Click to expand...
I did not think you considered yourself “bound” by any Catholic dogma.

Catholics are bound to the dogmas that have been revealed through the Church. The dogmas about Mary are part of public revelation. The Popes’ impetus to declare them is private.
 
guanophore said:
40.png
mcq72:
Yes, there are many private revelations, but the faithful are not bound to them
Click to expand...
I am not bound to believe that the Pope had a private revelation that he was to proclaim the dogma.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No, but you are bound to believe Mary was assumed into Heaven with both body and soul, right?
Click to expand...
 
guanophore said:
Surely you don’t think that the concept of the Trinity was a "new’ revelation in the fourth century!
Click to expand...
One thing is the depth of Chrystological reality and undertsanding, but not quite the same as an historical event, like the assumption…it either ocurred or it did not…it would be a matter of record, not of theological understanding…Not too mention a better or more ecplicit prooftexts and typologies for Trinity.
 
Last edited:
So public that few or none hear about it, believe it or have to believe it ?

Disagree that because it is believed today and was yesterday , that it must be from the beginning, from the apostles. That some believed it does not make it “public”. And if they are “public”, a pope’s declaration may seem a formality, following the apostles declaration of same.

Also not sure how such Tradition, from apostles, would need an ever growing light on the matter, from the Holy Spirit, of an historical event.(not an understanding of the event, but that it ocurred ).
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
So public that few or none hear about it, believe it or have to believe it ?
Click to expand...
I think you lost me here. The dogmas of the Catholic faith are very public, and Catholics know that they are bound to assent to them. There are some poorly catechized Catholics who do not know their faith well, but that does not exempt them from the obligation to assent.
mcq72 said:
Disagree that because it is believed today and was yesterday , that it must be from the beginning, from the apostles.
Click to expand...
I don’t know who you thought was asserting such a thing, but it was not me!

However, since the Apostles personally knew Mary, don’t you think they would be aware of what her relationship with Jesus was like? Do you think no Apostle was with her at the end of her life? Do you think that John, into whose care she was given, abandoned her?
mcq72 said:
That some believed it does not make it “public”.
Click to expand...
Certainly not. Public revelation is the once for all divine deposit of faith.
mcq72 said:
And if they are “public”, a pope’s declaration may seem a formality, following the apostles declaration of same.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Marian dogmatic proclamations are a formality. Like the Trinity and the contents of the NT, the dogmatic pronouncement does not reveal anything “new”.
 
mcq72 said:
40.png
guanophore:
Surely you don’t think that the concept of the Trinity was a "new’ revelation in the fourth century!
Click to expand...
One thing is the depth of Chrystological reality and undertsanding, but not quite the same as an historical event, like the assumption…it either ocurred or it did not…it would be a matter of record, not of theological understanding…Not too mention a better or more ecplicit prooftexts and typologies for Trinity.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think it is a bit different in that regard.

It was an event, and one not found in Scripture. Also, the records which do attest to it are found in Apocrypha, and not many accounts agree on how the event took place.

The Church does not use these apocrypha as their source, however.

Also, I can appreciate the frustration that the doctrine in held as necessary to believe, as if a person could believe in the Gospel soundly, yet not matter because he reject a Doctrine regarding Mary.

I wonder if the Church simply made its assertion without such a consequence for doubting it, would that have helped? What if the Church used language more like Jesus did regarding the return of Elijah?

Matthew 11
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Eli′jah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

“… if you are willing to accept it…”

Did that imply it was not necessary to accept it?
Im not sure. He uses that language with Gospel truths also, right?
 
mcq72 said:
One thing is the depth of Chrystological reality and undertsanding, but not quite the same as an historical event, like the assumption…it either ocurred or it did not…it would be a matter of record, not of theological understanding…Not too mention a better or more ecplicit prooftexts and typologies for Trinity.
Click to expand...
This is just the point, though, is it not? You restrict the “matter of record” to how you perceive Scripture, where those who have received the Apostolic faith have kept the commandment to preserve ALL, including that which was not in Scripture.

The NT was not written for the purpose of “providing prooftexts” for the One Faith, which was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written.

The hypostatic union was an historical event - one that no one witnessed or specifically documented. The Trinity was revealed to humankind over a period of time, but this revelation was an historical event. Nevertheless, both of these events required theological understanding. Obviously the “prooftexts” for them are insufficient, since people interpret the Scripture in a contrary manner.

The same might be said of infant baptism, and the Sacramental life of the Church. As much as we might want “explicit prooftexts”, they are just not there, or if they are there (“Baptism…now saves you”) they are interpreted otherwise by those who do not receive the One Faith.
 
How did this article relate to the OP?

Matthew 12

“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest, but he finds none. Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and brings with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.
 
Last edited:
guanophore said:
You restrict the “matter of record” to how you perceive Scripture, w
Click to expand...
No, i think the matter of record is scripture itself. How one perceives scripture is something different, though a perception on a matter may become “tradition”, a universal truth
 
Last edited:
You guys are discussing it below about the assumption of Mary and this other issue that has infested the church.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
What do you believe?
Click to expand...
Honestly, for the humble moment I believe enough it is to live in a transformed life, and to fulfill that which the Spirit would lead me to…one can be very proud thinking he has not fallen to fables, as I suppose the flip side has a warning label also.
 
Not sure what that was saying. I was trying to ask what you believe. Do you believe Mary’s body was taken up to heaven by the Lord, or not?

I realize you are not fully Catholic, and have issues with aspects of a dogma, and do not see any Scriptural evidence (which neither do I, apart from Rev. 12).

Im simply asking what the Holy Spirit compels you to believe about the notion of Mary’s body being taken up to heaven.
 
Last edited:
I think there are a few scriptural allusion to the Assumption of Mary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top