Hail, Holy Queen

[kaycee]

The earliest is “If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one…Had she been martyred according to what is written: ‘Thine own soul a sword shall pierce’, then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:23 (A.D. 377).

not the 400 yrs. It was 377 AD

Excuse me.

The fact is He has never heard of the assumption. He says** No One knows what happend to her**.

The church knew nothing of this for 350ish years after the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Excuse me.

Apparently you don’t want to listen, I’m done with you kaycee. You do not want to understand.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Excuse me.

The fact is He has never heard of the assumption. He says** No One knows what happend to her**.

The church knew nothing of this for 350ish years after the resurrection of Jesus.

By that logic you can throw away the Trinity as well because it didn’t came about until 325 A.D.

 

[kaycee]

Mary assumed into heaven period. This was the belief of the ECF and Christians. You are putting yourself at odds with Orthodox who believe in the Dormition of Mary…

As are you with the first 350 years of the church and against the anathemas of 2 popes.

I also like to see a quote that the Bodily Assumption of Mary was condemned by a Pope. Well, you can’t find one, kaycee.

The closest we get is the condemnation and anathema from 2 popes to the first document that ever mentions the assumption.

Again it’s like your looking for Clement to condemn Arianism directly.

 

[Mannyfit75]

As are you with the first 350 years of the church and against the anathemas of 2 popes.

The closest we get is the condemnation and anathema from 2 popes to the first document that ever mentions the assumption.

Again it’s like your looking for Clement to condemn Arianism directly.

But these Anathema did not condemned the belief that Mary was taken up to heaven. You still have not answer the question is assuming into heaven against Scriptutre?

 

[Mannyfit75]

As are you with the first 350 years of the church and against the anathemas of 2 popes.

The closest we get is the condemnation and anathema from 2 popes to the first document that ever mentions the assumption.

Again it’s like your looking for Clement to condemn Arianism directly.

The irony is that you are citing Catholic sources to condemned Catholic doctrines.

 

[kaycee]

Apparently you don’t want to listen, I’m done with you kaycee. You do not want to understand.

I believe i understand all to well. The church must be infallible no matter what the historical evidence to the contrary indicates. Error that creeps into the church must be rationalized to maintain Church authority at all costs. Sorry, to be frank, but it really comes down to belief in the ultimate authority of the Church or the ultimate authority of Jesus, the Word of God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I believe i understand all to well. The church must be infallible no matter what the historical evidence to the contrary indicates. Error that creeps into the church must be rationalized to maintain Church authority at all costs. Sorry, to be frank, but it really comes down to belief in the ultimate authority of the Church or the ultimate authority of Jesus, the Word of God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible.

Let me end this by saying Jesus own words, “He who hears you hears me.”

The Church is granted authority by Jesus. This has been like this for over 2,000 yrs. It is not Church authority versus Christ Authority. If the Church had no authority they have no right to form the Council of Jerusalem, and other Council that came after it.

Jesus gave us a Church, and this Church has authority. Without it there would be no Bible, there were be no Trinity which stem from Church authority not from Scripture Alone.

Assumption of Mary is Scriptural Supported:

From Scripture:

The following passage (Rev. 12:1-8) shows us that Mary, Ark of the New Covenant, is truly the mother of all Christians (even of those who refuse to acknowledge here as their mother). This passage also shows us a vision of Mary, Queen of Heaven, and hints at her Assumption. This gift of suffering no corruption in the grave and being “caught up” into heaven while still alive is perfectly in accordance with Scripture. Similar assumptions happened to Enoch (Gen. 5:24; Heb 11:5) and Elijah (cf 2 Kings 2:1, 11 -12), and are promised to some Christians in the future:
1 Thessalonians 4: 13-17.

Revelation 12:1-8

Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman, robed with the sun, standing on the moon, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.2 She was pregnant, and in labour, crying aloud in the pangs of childbirth.3 Then a second sign appeared in the sky: there was a huge red dragon with seven heads and ten horns, and each of the seven heads crowned with a coronet.4 Its tail swept a third of the stars from the sky and hurled them to the ground, and the dragon stopped in front of the woman as she was at the point of giving birth, so that it could eat the child as soon as it was born.5 The woman was delivered of a boy, the son who was to rule all the nations with an iron sceptre, and the child was taken straight up to God and to his throne,6 while the woman escaped into the desert, where God had prepared a place for her to be looked after for twelve hundred and sixty days.7And now war broke out in heaven, when Michael with his angels attacked the dragon. The dragon fought back with his angels, 8 but they were defeated and driven out of heaven.

Here are the other Biblical quotes Patrick cited:

Gen 5:24
24 Enoch walked with God, then was no more, because God took him

Hebrews 11:5
5 It was because of his faith that Enoch was taken up and did not experience death: he was no more, because God took him; because before his assumption he was acknowledged to have pleased God

1 Thessalonians 4: 13-17
13 We want you to be quite certain, brothers, about those who have fallen asleep, to make sure that you do not grieve for them, as others do who have no hope.14 We believe that Jesus died and rose again, and that in the same way God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.15 We can tell you this from the Lord’s own teaching, that we who are still alive for the Lord’s coming will not have any advantage over those who have fallen asleep.16 At the signal given by the voice of the Archangel and the trumpet of God, the Lord himself will come down from heaven; those who have died in Christ will be the first to rise,17and only after that shall we who remain alive be taken up in the clouds, together with them, to meet the Lord in the air. This is the way we shall be with the Lord for ever.

 

[Mickey]

I am getting VERY FRUSTRATED with your objection, kaycee.

Do not be disturbed by kaycee, my friend. We trust the Church regarding the Asumption of Our Lady. Bodily assumption is not foreign to Scripture (see Enoch and Elijah). Furthermore, there is very strong, solid and ancient documentation for the belief of “The Real Presence” and “Baptismal Regeneration,” yet kaycee denies these also.

I will trust the Church!

 

[water]

I will trust the Church!

Every time we reply to this post, we say “Hail, Holy Queen”.

Every time this thread goes to the top of the list, at least 50 people get to see.

Therefore, whoever has any objection to this prayer, let it be, his objection is not always bringing negative but benifits to those who might want to know more about the Blessed Mother … though he himself might not gain any benifit for his objection.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Every time we reply to this post, we say “Hail, Holy Queen”.

Every time this thread goes to the top of the list, at least 50 people get to see.

Therefore, whoever has any objection to this prayer, let it be, his objection is not always bringing negative but benifits to those who might want to know more about the Blessed Mother … though he himself might not gain any benifit for his objection.

 

[mikeledes]

It is interesting how the epistle of Jude quotes an apocryphal work written over a thousand years after Moses died called “The Assumption of Moses.” We have no documented evidence that Michael had a dispute with Satan over Moses’s body until the first century B.C and the first record we have of it, as I already mentioned, is a 1st century B.C. apocryphal source. Jude hald no qualms in using it.

God Bless,
Michael

I reaffirm what I said in this post. The fact that there is no documentary evidence for a certain belief for a certain period of time does not mean that it was non-existent or isn’t true. The truth regarding Moses’s body was not recorded until the 1st century B.C in an apocryohal book and it was this apocryphal source that Jude quotes.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[kbharbert]

Maybe we miss a memo that Mary is a goddess. Did you get that?

We Catholics do not worship Mary, those Non-Catholics need to get that their heads.

Type this 100 times.

1. Catholics do not worship Mary.
2. Catholic do not worship Mary.

If you claim that we do, we claim You Protestants that you worship the wall of the Church whom you raise you hands up, and look upon.

1. Protestants worship the Ceiling of the Church.

Of course I am trying to point out the sillyness of this ridicule bias that Protestant have that we worship Mary. Of course I know, they don’t. I know that but such general judgment of what we Catholics do with regard to Mary is just foolish.

:extrahappy:

 

[promethius95945]

Can you show me where the Popes who condemned this gnostic gospel, stated what was correct and what was error?

obviously, what was correct is what was in keeping with the teaching of God’s Holy Catholic Church. what was in error is that which obviously contradicts the Church God established and plunges into heresy.

 

[Keikiolu]

Our Life, our sweetness, our hope? I have a problem with this in regards to Mary. Not so much the sweetness part, but our Life and our Hope??? That seems to me to be elevating Mary to the same place as our Lord. I’m sure I’m misundertanding or misinterpreting this, (I hope), but some good Catholic answers would be helpful.

TIA,
oneseeker

Mary

Mary as “icon”.

Any questions?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Mickey]

Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas declared the apochryphal work Transitus Mariae to be heretical

Granted, in the Decretum Gelasianum, Gelasius rejected these documents, since some of them contained fanciful stories similar to other apocryphal literature. But that is not the issue at stake here. The issue is that these documents show a undying concern with the Assumption of Mary in the early church, since the Transitus Mariae documents have been dated as early as the second or third century. The interesting fact that [is not revealed] about the Transitus Mariae is that much of it claimed that Mary had actually died and was not assumed into heaven. Perhaps this was why it was rejected by Gelasius, either because it denied the Assumption, or because its contents contained conflicting accounts of what occurred.

The point in fact is that Epiphanius’ fourth century question about Mary’s demise was still unanswered. As the centuries pass, there is a constant question, one that will not go away, of whether: (a) Mary died, and (b) Mary was assumed into heaven, with no dogmatic answer to either. The question did not cease up until 1950. At this time, it became a consensus that Mary was indeed assumed into heaven. Finally, in the late 1940’s, Pius XII wrote to all the bishops of the world and asked them their opinion. 99% wrote back and said they believed that Mary was Assumed into Heaven. Here is a perfect example of how the Church’s bishops, in union with the Pope, fulfill the statement in Matthew 18:18 concerning their prerogative to bind and loose.

catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/marysaints/bodily-assumption.htm

 

[governorperez]

dear Friend,
i greet Our Lady with love and reverence much like i regard my mother and family members with precedence and places of honor.
Mary is alive in Heaven. I commune with her spirit to spirit. Archangel Gabriel greeted Mary : " HAIL Mary full of grace ! "
The Lord was and is with our beloved Mother Mary.

Love , not idolatry.

Icons are representations much as photos we have of our loved ones we carry around in our wallets or place in our homes. when i see representations of my loved ones i remember them with love.

Love, not idolatry.

by the way where do i get that small icon smiley taking coffee ?
Shalom .
gov

 

[Cari]

Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I’m confused here.

1. If belief about the Assumption/Dormition of Mary was a heretical belief, but was allowed to “creep into” the Church, wouldn’t that mean false doctrine was being taught?
2. If false doctrine were being taught, wouldn’t that mean that the gates of Hell had prevailed, as now the faithful were believing something that was a lie?
3. If the gates of Hell had prevailed as a result of the Assumption, then that would mean Jesus was wrong.
4. If Jesus were wrong, then we’ve got a whole lot more to worry about than whether or not Mary was granted the same blessing as other figures in Sacred Scripture.

Was this covered already?

Cheers,
Cari

 

[Mannyfit75]

Sorry if this has already been addressed, but I’m confused here.

1. If belief about the Assumption/Dormition of Mary was a heretical belief, but was allowed to “creep into” the Church, wouldn’t that mean false doctrine was being taught?
2. If false doctrine were being taught, wouldn’t that mean that the gates of Hell had prevailed, as now the faithful were believing something that was a lie?
3. If the gates of Hell had prevailed as a result of the Assumption, then that would mean Jesus was wrong.
4. If Jesus were wrong, then we’ve got a whole lot more to worry about than whether or not Mary was granted the same blessing as other figures in Sacred Scripture.

Was this covered already?

Cheers,
Cari

The doctrine of the Assumption was not condemned. The only record of it is from an Gnostic book which itself is condemned but no where did any Pope condemned that Mary assumed body. The Church is preserved from error.

The fact that Mary assumed into heaven is connected to the Immaculate Conception. We know that in the immaculate conception, Mary was preserved by God from the stains of original sin and actual sin. She had no tendency to sin. Since the sin brings forth death, and Mary was preserved she did not subject to decomposition. God preserved her thus.

In some tradition, Mary died in her final days, and when the Apostles went to her tomb in Ephesus, they did not find her body. The Lord Jesus took her into heaven. Mary is a type of ark, since she is the only human being to have God inside her during His first 9 months on earth. This does not contradict the teachings of the church.

A Catholic is free to believed that she did died and then assumed, or that she didn’t die and was taken into heaven. I firmly believed that Mary did died. God see fit her time on earth is complete. It was time for her to be with her son. Her death was not the result of sin (since Mary had no sin) but Mary’s mission on earth was done. She gave birth to the Messiah, the Word of the Living God. She is now in heaven, body and soul. She reign as Queen of heaven just as Rev 12:1 states, and she brings petition of prayers before her beloved son to this day.

 

[Cari]

The doctrine of the Assumption was not condemned. The only record of it is from an Gnostic book which itself is condemned but no where did any Pope condemned that Mary assumed body. The Church is preserved from error.
.

I’m in complete agreement with you, Manny. I was just wondering how someone who DOESN’T agree with the Assumption would answer my previous post.