Explain This - Non Catholics?

[Dauphin]

So the Bible said that Jesus ascended to Heaven. The Bible says nothing of Mary being assumed. Huge difference.

You’ve missed the point. At its core, this argument is really about sola scriptura.

 

[Nella]

You’ve missed the point. At its core, this argument is really about sola scriptura.

I never claimed that I believe in sola scriptura because I do not, but I do believe that ALL church teaching must square with scripture. The Assumption of mary clearly does not. This IS the point.

 

[Dauphin]

Enhance your faith in what?

That the Eucharist is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches that it is not?

If I chased after the “miraculous” to enhance my faith, I would probably agree with you.

Thank you for the insult, but it does not address the more seious questions.

…

I don’t think it can get much simpler.

If this miracle is indeed true and isn’t some sort of hoax perpetrated by an Italian congregation with nothing better to do, then its purpose it obvious.

At the same time the transubstantiation was occurring, God created an entirely separate miracle. He changed the appearance (accidents) of bread and wine into the appearance of flesh and blood. This was meant to enhance the faith of the priest and those in his congregation in the belief that the Eucharist is the Flesh and Blood of Christ. It was not designed to indicate that the Eucharist is only a piece of Christ’s heart, but instead to provide a visible sign so that the people’s faith in transubstantiation may be enhanced.

I believe it was St. Thomas Aquinas who made it clear that Eucharistic miracles are not transubstantiation. They are instead intended as a simple visible sign to confirm the faith of Catholics. The miracle of transubstantiation and the miracle of the appearance of flesh and blood are entirely separate miracles.

 

[Nella]

How can you possibly teach doctrine that does NOT parallel with Scripture?? How could you otherwise prove where your teaching came from? I can tell you that the Holy Spirit discerned it to me that Benny Hinn will be the next pope. Will you believe me? Does it matter? Most importantly, how can it be proven?

 

[Dauphin]

I never claimed that I believe in sola scriptura because I do not, but I do believe that ALL church teaching must square with scripture. The Assumption of mary clearly does not. This IS the point.

You’ll have to be more specific. In what way does the assumption of Mary not “square” with scripture?

Also, if you reject sola scriptura, in what other source of divine revelation do you believe? I pray it’s not the teaching of the Anglican church. Where I live, anglicans teach that gay marriage blessings are “not contrary to core doctrine”. Where did they get this idea?

 

[Indyann]

How can you possibly teach doctrine that does NOT parallel with Scripture?? How could you otherwise prove where your teaching came from? I can tell you that the Holy Spirit discerned it to me that Benny Hinn will be the next pope. Will you believe me? Does it matter? Most importantly, how can it be proven?

You have derailed yet another thread. This one is about Eucharistic miracles, not about your personal agenda.

 

[Nella]

You have derailed yet another thread. This one is about Eucharistic miracles, not about your personal agenda.

This does not even deserve a response so therefore I will not give it one.

 

[Dauphin]

How can you possibly teach doctrine that does NOT parallel with Scripture?? How could you otherwise prove where your teaching came from? I can tell you that the Holy Spirit discerned it to me that Benny Hinn will be the next pope. Will you believe me? Does it matter? Most importantly, how can it be proven?

Again, how is The Assumption “not parrallel” with scripture? Does it contradict it, or does it just go against its “feel” in your opinion?

No, I don’t believe in your revelations or teachings. I believe in the teachings of the Magesterium and of Sacred Oral Tradition, along with Scripture. These are the pillars of the church. Very simply, we know that we can trust in the first two because of the protections the church was promised by Christ.

 

[Nella]

Again, how is The Assumption “not parrallel” with scripture? Does it contradict it, or does it just go against its “feel” in your opinion?

No, I don’t believe in your revelations or teachings. I believe in the teachings of the Magesterium and of Sacred Oral Tradition, along with Scripture. These are the pillars of the church. Very simply, we know that we can trust in the first two because of the protections the church was promised by Christ.

I simply do not agree with this. If scripture stated that Enoch was assumed body and spirit into Heaven, surely it would be most important enough to mention if the same happened to Mary, but it didn’t. Pretty simple really. Do you not believe that all scripture is inspired by God?

 

[Dauphin]

I simply do not agree with this. If scripture stated that Enoch was assumed body and spirit into Heaven, surely it would be most important enough to mention if the same happened to Mary, but it didn’t. Pretty simple really. Do you not believe that all scripture is inspired by God?

Of course I believe that all scripture is inspired by God.

You have to understand that if Scripture does not record an event, it does not follow that the event did not happen. Scripture does not record Paul or Peter’s journey to Rome, and they were both martyred there while the Bible was still being written.

If you reject the assumption of Mary, you reject the Authority of the church that was founded by Christ; that same church which gave you the canon of the New Testament. This is where the issue lies. If you do not accept sola scriptura, then what other sources of truth do you accept? What, besides the Bible, is a sure norm by which Christians can know the teaching of Christ?

 

[Nella]

Of course I believe that all scripture is inspired by God.

You have to understand that if Scripture does not record an event, it does not follow that the event did not happen. Scripture does not record Paul or Peter’s journey to Rome, and they were both martyred there while the Bible was still being written.

If you reject the assumption of Mary, you reject the Authority of the church that was founded by Christ; that same church which gave you the canon of the New Testament. This is where the issue lies. If you do not accept sola scriptura, then what other sources of truth do you accept? What, besides the Bible, is a sure norm by which Christians can know the teaching of Christ?

What I reject are teachings that cannot be proven, cannot be documented and above all cannot be labeled truth. Yes I do reject the Authority of your church. No offense intended.

 

[lukewarm]

I always wonder why they don’t take all the “eucharistic miracles” and test their DNA? Actually I know why they don’t because it would become very obvious that the flesh is not of the same DNA…

 

[Atemi]

I
At the same time the transubstantiation was occurring, God created an entirely separate miracle. He changed the appearance (accidents) of bread and wine into the appearance of flesh and blood. This was meant to enhance the faith of the priest and those in his congregation in the belief that the Eucharist is the Flesh and Blood of Christ.

The RCC does not teach the Eucharist is the just the flesh and blood of Christ, but Jesus Christ whole and entire: flesh, blood, blones, hair, fingernails, soul, and divinity.

So God enhanced their faith my turning the Eucharist into something it is not?

That is just not a plausible explanantion, but I know you accept it.

…

 

[AgnosTheist]

That is exactly what the quote says. For one who does not believe no explanation is possible because they just won’t listen. If someone does not believe it is because of one of two reasons - they haven’t heard the Truth or they refuse to listen and believe.

You said “proof”

The quote said “explanation”.

Can you tell the difference?

Thomas was a disbeliever. It wasnt explanations that convinced him, but the actual proof.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Why has the BVM never repeated this alleged miracle? Why does she never restore severed limbs at any of her sites (eg Lourdes?).

I don’t know that Mary hasn’t interceded for others. I haven’t done an in-depth study of all such miracles.

But, when I get to Heaven I shall ask her.

Me thinks whatver happened to him it was not a restoration of his cut off hand.

Oh, I forgot - God can’t perform a miracle. And here I thought He was omnipotent.

I would be interested in reading the eye witness testimonies of his missing hand and its restoration. Preferably from sources that would have no reason to fabricate it and whose authenticity someone had validated. Could you post those so I can read them. It would be great if it included a medical description of the amputation and restoration.

I look forward to the link of independent eye witnesses.

They did chronicle things like they do today. There was no headline news, nor any sort of medical record keeping like today. I think there are a couple of old biographies on him, but I have nothing to link to.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

You use the logic of “it can happen” instead of what is needed here, “it did happen”. This is the same logic Catholics use to explain the Assumption of Mary. Catholics when faced with how to prove this actually happened merely say that if God could do it for Enoch, then he must be able to do it for Mary. Well duh!! But the question is, did he?? We know he can but we don’t know if he did. Same thing.

Huh? Catholics don’t rely on this one single argument to define the whole of the Assumption. As with all other doctrines there are many, many arguments that all build up to the fullness of the Truth. In this case, this argument is used to show that such an event is not out of the realm of what God can and has done. There are other arguments to build up and prove the doctrine of the Assumption. But that is for another thread.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

So the Bible said that Jesus ascended to Heaven. The Bible says nothing of Mary being assumed. Huge difference.

Implicitly it does. And, you should know this by now by hanging out here, Catholics do not subscribe to the erroneous teaching of sola-scriptura.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I never claimed that I believe in sola scriptura because I do not, but I do believe that ALL church teaching must square with scripture. The Assumption of mary clearly does not. This IS the point.

All Church teaching must not contradict the Scriptures - and no Church teaching, including the Assumption, contradicts Scripture.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The RCC does not teach the Eucharist is the just the flesh and blood of Christ, but Jesus Christ whole and entire: flesh, blood, blones, hair, fingernails, soul, and divinity.

So God enhanced their faith my turning the Eucharist into something it is not?

That is just not a plausible explanantion, but I know you accept it.

…

Do you even read my posts?

Jesus is present whole and entire - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - in the smallest particle of the Host and the smallest drop of the Blood. This Truth is ontological, and not sensorial or accidental.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

You said “proof”

The quote said “explanation”.

Can you tell the difference?

Thomas was a disbeliever. It wasnt explanations that convinced him, but the actual proof.

As I see it, there are two camps.

The first would say that an explanation is a theory - usually a far-fetched and partly or entirely fictional one at that - that has no ‘hard’ evidence to support it. And a proof is a scientifically verifiable truth that cannot be disputed.

The second camp would pretty much equate terms like - proof; explanation; argument; defense; apology; etc.

It may depend on what subject one is speaking about as to which camp one is most likely to fall into. I tend to be close to camp two.