R
- Status
S
Soldier_X
Guest
Chill out, dude. It was a joke. You don’t know me or anything about my opinions or beliefs, or else you wouldn’t talk to me that way. I don’t appreciate personal attacks.
S
Soldier_X
Guest
Thanks bro…and things like this are the main reason for my frequent AWOLs from this forum. Seems like every time I come around, outrageous statements are directed at me, my friends, or any decent, normal people who make good points. It never fails.zdon, can you expound upon this and explain? You lost me here…
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Before I say what I’m about to say, let me qualify the fact that I DO believe in the Assumption of the BVM. It’s not at all a problem for me…
Ok, that being said, I’ve always wondered how the Catholic Church DOES know definitively that Mary was Assumed, body and soul, into heaven and yet they are NOT SURE if she was dead or alive at the time? How do they know one aspect with 100% metaphysical certitude and yet the other part they’re totally in the dark on? Does the Holy Spirit just reveal this stuff in patches or pieces? I ask this as a serious question, not being cavalier or silly. I ask it as a serious question. The Spirit evidently revealed to the Pope that Mary is immaculate. Then He revealed to the Pope that Mary was Assumed. And yet nothing about her being alive or dead? Why the lack of specificity and such a sketchy picture?
And also purgatory. It’s purgation ‘somehow’ but we’re not sure how. Why no details or depth of understanding of it? And yet the Holy Spirit revealed to the Pope the EXACT way that the Eucharist becomes the Eucharist—Transubstantiation. Why the specificity and exactness in one area and total greyness and vagueness in other areas?
Ok, that being said, I’ve always wondered how the Catholic Church DOES know definitively that Mary was Assumed, body and soul, into heaven and yet they are NOT SURE if she was dead or alive at the time? How do they know one aspect with 100% metaphysical certitude and yet the other part they’re totally in the dark on? Does the Holy Spirit just reveal this stuff in patches or pieces? I ask this as a serious question, not being cavalier or silly. I ask it as a serious question. The Spirit evidently revealed to the Pope that Mary is immaculate. Then He revealed to the Pope that Mary was Assumed. And yet nothing about her being alive or dead? Why the lack of specificity and such a sketchy picture?
And also purgatory. It’s purgation ‘somehow’ but we’re not sure how. Why no details or depth of understanding of it? And yet the Holy Spirit revealed to the Pope the EXACT way that the Eucharist becomes the Eucharist—Transubstantiation. Why the specificity and exactness in one area and total greyness and vagueness in other areas?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
We were discussing this today…The dogmas of Mary come from the spirit and heart of the Church…there have been numerous doctors and mystics down through the ages that have been spiritual guides in the personal walk with God. It is called the walk in perfection.
You can’t skip steps or by pass another person…we all have to go through the same process of dying to ourselves and our flesh…as the ego and flesh are what lead us to sin.
Mary’s being did not lead her to sin. She was not her own creation, she did not will herself to be immaculately pure…she was a special creation of God…He created her with no sin…and her entire being at the moment of her conception was a ‘yes’ to God.
Her spiritual walk is not like ours. She did not have the inner struggles of the ego and flesh…she did not always understand the will of God. But she put her trust in Him and stepped out into mystery.
I would think she would follow Jesus in death. But she did not go through the purgation of sin, and being especially Christ’s mother, conceived without sin, one can say Christ Himself came to take her, she achieving her glorious state— that some day we will also share in heaven – after her last moment here on earth.
So it took consistent expressions of the spiritual walk for many, many years, almost 2,000 years for the administration to look back, reflect, see the same message, but also see for Mary she had no purgation and achieved the glorious state the moment she left this world.
All the expressions of the faithful must be true movements of the Holy Spirit and bearing the same fruit of Jesus Christ, as it is in diversity we achieve our unity.
You can’t skip steps or by pass another person…we all have to go through the same process of dying to ourselves and our flesh…as the ego and flesh are what lead us to sin.
Mary’s being did not lead her to sin. She was not her own creation, she did not will herself to be immaculately pure…she was a special creation of God…He created her with no sin…and her entire being at the moment of her conception was a ‘yes’ to God.
Her spiritual walk is not like ours. She did not have the inner struggles of the ego and flesh…she did not always understand the will of God. But she put her trust in Him and stepped out into mystery.
I would think she would follow Jesus in death. But she did not go through the purgation of sin, and being especially Christ’s mother, conceived without sin, one can say Christ Himself came to take her, she achieving her glorious state— that some day we will also share in heaven – after her last moment here on earth.
So it took consistent expressions of the spiritual walk for many, many years, almost 2,000 years for the administration to look back, reflect, see the same message, but also see for Mary she had no purgation and achieved the glorious state the moment she left this world.
All the expressions of the faithful must be true movements of the Holy Spirit and bearing the same fruit of Jesus Christ, as it is in diversity we achieve our unity.
Z
zdon011
Guest
Ah, but anyone who calls him/herself ‘Cranmer’ deserves to be shown up for it.Where are we, Catholic Answers Forums or Medievel Times in Los Angeles? What’s next, a drumstick, feudal jousting, and armor? Renaissance faires? LOL m’lord?
But I understand you Americans are a little touchy on Titles of Nobility (Section 9, isn’t it?). I shall oblige, Gurney. Henceforth I shall refrain from referring to any but Our Lord and the landlord/lady.
And, by the way, all your suggestions sound fun:knight2::knight1:…if a little difficult to achieve online.
He presumed to use dost in the third person. Pedantry.zdon, can you expound upon this and explain? You lost me here…
Forget it
Z
zdon011
Guest
Yes, I was exaggerating. But as I said, I was responding to your use of LANGUAGE. I wrote it in jest, and I’m very sorry that I made it sound so serious
No, I don’t make personal attacks on anyone for his beliefs…even if he’s a Scientologist And in the end, it makes no difference to me whether you, or anyone else, believe in the Assumption or not.Good for you. Work’s what keeps me away. Apropos of that…
No doubt I’ve excluded myself from the last-mentioned group
L
Lapell
Guest
And Jesus, who chose to be born of a woman, should not want that His mother be honoured? The Fathers of the Church did it in the first centuries of the Church. Her yes made it possible for God the Son to incarnate Himself into a man, so why should she not be honoured by all the generations of Christians. Why did saint Luke in his Gospel put these words in Mary’s mouth: “All the generations will call me blessed”? Why write it in the Gospel? She is Jesus’ mother, and He is the one who honoured her by making her the mother of all the faithful!
L
Lapell
Guest
You don’t seem to realize Jesus is God, and that in God there is no sin, and that for Jesus’ blood to be shed efficaciously for the sins of us all there was no room in Him for any imperfection whatsoever: as the Lamb of God, He had to be perfectly unblemished… To be born from someone who might not have sinned in her life but who would have been born with the stained mark left by original sin, would have rendered this one universal sacrifice…UNVALID!!
- Status