N
Negative
Guest
thanks
I don't understand the problem with the title "Mary, Mother of God"
- Status
O
Omar_Gatskill
Guest
Ambrose, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bernard, Innocent III. There are others.
B
BeholdTheFinalA
Guest
“I had sent My servants to you, yet you had no eyes to see. They spoke to you, yet you had no ears to hear. Therefore have I caused My sons to prophesy against you! THEREFORE SHALL I SPEAK AGAINST YOU! For your ways I do hate! All your pride and showmanship are a great perversion of My majesty! And when I called to you, saying, “COME OUT!”, you would not hear… You refused to listen!
Churches of men, look on all you have done! You are trapped, ensnared by all your harlotries, which you have in common with your estranged mother, the catholic church… Satan shall devour you together!
Yet many of you will come to sing in that Day! And though you are left desolate, and brought to utter ruin, I have reserved to Myself a great remnant from among you… A great multitude who shall sing for Me, even unto their dying breath… For I am God, and this is My will.”
trumpetcallofgodonline.com/index.php5?title=Sick%2C_Diseased_Churches…_Foolish_Children
Churches of men, look on all you have done! You are trapped, ensnared by all your harlotries, which you have in common with your estranged mother, the catholic church… Satan shall devour you together!
Yet many of you will come to sing in that Day! And though you are left desolate, and brought to utter ruin, I have reserved to Myself a great remnant from among you… A great multitude who shall sing for Me, even unto their dying breath… For I am God, and this is My will.”
trumpetcallofgodonline.com/index.php5?title=Sick%2C_Diseased_Churches…_Foolish_Children
Z
Zenas
Guest
The authority of the Bible of course. Evangelicals don’t need a church council to determine heresy. If it isn’t in the Bible it’s suspect. If it’s not even implied in the Bible it’s heresy. However, heresy is a poor choice of words for an evangelical. They don’t use that word very often. Instead, you will hear words like blasphemy, or paganism, or idolatry, or my personal favorite—Mariolitry. Seriously, though, if you put your Tradition aside Mary is given no titles in the Blble (other than “blessed” which is also ignored by evangelicals), and there is no suggestion that she should have any title. Indeed, Mary is relatively insignificant in the cast of Bible characters. She isn’t even specifically mentioned after the first chapter of Acts.
The Synod of Dort was for protestants. Evangelicals don’t consider themselves protestants and they especially don’t consider themselves bound by any council or conference. They consider groups like Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians to be protestants because these people regard their roots to be in the OHCAC. Evangelicals are not interested in their roots. They are interested in the Bible.
“Not necessarily Calvinist”? They are about as far from Calvinism as you can get without being Catholic. You’re right about the Baptists, although you will be hard pressed to find one who admits any kinship to the Church of England. Have you heard of a cult within the Baptist church called Landmarkism?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I disagree with your misunderstanding of what the Catholic church teaches about “When the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory” CCC 966.Hesychios;8798067]I think we understand each other.
The whole thing is peculiar.
Saying that the church never defined that Saint Mary died is like saying the church never formally defined that Pope John Paul II has died. Same thing.
John Paul II body was buried, Mary’s body was never buried, we have no tomb. The Popes body is suseptible to mortal corruption. Mary’s body saw no mortal corruption when her earthly life was finished, this does not emphatically state Mary died a mortal death and suffered her body to corruption.
The CCC teaches at the course of her earthly life was finished, places Mary’s completion of her earthly life pertains to God’s will on how God willed her life to finish when, where and how God concluded Mary’s life during the course of her life, the Church has no tradition that indicates Mary suffered a heart attack and died. The completion of her life remains suspended in mystery and faith as to how and when Mary’s life finished according to the will of God. We confess that Mary’s body and soul was assumed into heaven by God, that points to the resurrection of all believers.
Mary was never resurrected from the dead, nor assumed by herself. Just as God had taken Enoch and Elijah so as not to taste death, it is not difficult for God to assume Mary’s body and soul into heaven.
There is no medical fact, historical fact nor religious fact that the BVM suffered a mortal death of corruption. This is never Catholic teaching, nor does any Catholic tradition teach such nonsense.
Scripture supports the assumption of Mary body and soul into heaven. tradition never contests the assumption, until 1500 years after the assumption of Mary from those who protest the teaching of the Church.
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is a perfect example of the danger of departing from tradition and developing doctrine.
This is why we have to be vigilant against novelties in religion.
Thanks for illustrating the point so well.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Hesychios showed that multiple doctors of the Catholic Church, like St. John of Damascus, taught that she died and then was assumed into heaven. The teaching is indeed apostolic, and is commemorated as the dormition of the Theotokos by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Not only that, every example given was straight out of the Papal Bull Munificentissimus Deus composed by Pope Pius XII.
T
Telestia
Guest
I’ll agree that you made the best argument you could make to support your view.
I do not believe Mary’s Body was assumed into Heaven, it is not in the Bible, but rather, that this idea has simply been assumed by some people. And apparently, believed by many wherever it is taught as being a fact.
I do not believe that my body is me. My body is a machine, a wonderful dwelling that I, a spirit, resides in while I am on Earth. My spirit controls my body - the machine. My thoughts wills my body to stand up, run, shake hands, give a wink, etc.
In the same manner, when I get into an automobile, the automobile becomes an extension of my body. My thoughts, per my will, will send signals to my eyes, my arms, and my hands, and my feet, causing the car to move in the direction I - a spirit- desire, at the speed that I desire. Both, my automobile and my body are merely machines. Cars are manufactured in factories, and bodies are manufactured in a woman’s womb.
And when we die, our body decays into dust, but my spirit returns to the Lord, or possibly, kept in some kind of hibernation until a time God takes us into His Kingdom.
There have been many near death experiences where peoples spirits left their bodies, observing their body and the people near their body trying to help them. Scripture states that Flesh and Blood can not inherit the Kingdom of God. I have two brothers that had out of body experiences, and so have I, and we were spirits.
1 Co 15:50-57
Now I say this, brethren, that FLESH AND BLOOD CAN NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. NASU
We are spirits. And I believe that Jesus had been bodily on Earth many times before He was born via Mary.
I believe Jesus was the 4th man in the fire, That He was the one who sat down and ate with Abraham, and He may well have been Hosea whom God changed his name to Joshua whom was the only person on Mount Sinai (in Saudi Arabia near Midian) when Moses received the Commandments from God and whom was the only person who dwelt in the tent where God dwelt during the Exodus, and whom God chose to lead His People into the promise land after Moses broke the Covenant of the Law that bears Moses name, which caused God to not allow Moses to enter the promise land.
As for Mary, she is indeed a blessed (i.e. speak well of) person. Mary is a very special person whom we all ought to speak well of. But there is no reason to make her equal to God, nor bestow her with numerous titles that Scripture does not support.
Disclaimer: And the above is merely my opinion based on my understanding of the Scriptures, I do not speak for God…
T
Telestia
Guest
Yes I am. Normally, The high Priest would pour the blood into the Ark of the Covenant. Inside the Ark were the commandments given to Moses. The blood offering covered the commandments allowing God to not destroy the peoples for breaking their covenant in the past year. When Nehemiah rebuilt the Temple, The Holy of Holies had no Ark. The High Priest who entered therein simply poured the Blood offering where the Ark use to be.
It ought to be pointed out that in the first hundred or so years after the the Revelation of John allegedly was written, many Christian Churches (bodies of believers) rejected Revelation of John as they deemed it was not scriptural. When the Bible was formed of 66 books in the 4th century, those composing the NT had 65 books, and it was decided to add a book of Revelations. The choice was between the Revelation of John, and the Revelation of Peter. The Revelation of John beat out the Revelation of Peter by two votes. I have read both, Neither do I find useful in my Christian walk with God.You do understand that when the Messiah came, there was to be a temple and of course the Ark…and that the book of Revelation was written 65-90 AD. It was written at that time and of course the early Church, Jews knew that there was to be a Temple and to have the temple the Ark had to be present…You can imagine the early Jewish Christian hearing that the Ark was in heaven would ask…well what does it look like…read on…
Jesus said he would rebuild the temple and when the early Christians read Revelation and saw that the Ark was in heaven…the next description that follows is that of a vision of a woman with a child…The Queen Mother, was the Ark…the Temple was not earthly but heavenly and the vision notes the woman…all first century Christians particularly the Jews would have made this translation of understanding knowing that they had been waiting for an earthly temple likened to the Davidic prototype…Jesus the Messiah was to rule in the heavenly kingdom and all that they anticipated was to be fulfilled however not as they knew it in the earthly realm…
I certainly can not make much sense of John’s Revelation after the seven letters. But the most logical interpretation of the twelve stars, the moon and the Sun, would be related to Joseph’s dream of the Sun, the Moon, and twelve Stars as being Israel. After that, I have no idea what that book is revealing. So I am happy to simply stick with the good News of salvation via the covering of sin by the Blood of the Lamb of God - Jesus Christ.
J
JustaServant
Guest
This view is pure Gnosticism. Which explains why you do not understand the Catholic view.
T
Telestia
Guest
I hope this is not a hit and run response.
Please provide your definition of what Gnosticism actually is?
Then explain why you believe what is it, that I wrote, that you deem to be gnosticism?
I am quite familiar with the gnostic Nag Hammadi scriptures and I reject them as distortions of, and inconsistent with, the OT and NT Scriptures.
P
pablope
Guest
And how does the Bible exercise its authority? Through you? How does the Bible speak? Through you only?
I hope this article will shed more light on what you said here:calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/
Excerpts:
Mohler claims that we have an “objective standard” by which to define what is and what is not Christianity. That objective standard is “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” But this subtly pushes back the question: What is the objective standard for what counts as “traditional Christian orthodoxy”? Mohler appeals to the early creeds, and the first four ecumenical councils. He seems to think that the end of the fifth century is roughly the cutoff for “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” But picking the fifth century as the cutoff for “traditional Christian orthodoxy” is no less ad hoc than picking the first century. If one thinks that the Church fell into heresy or apostasy, there is no more principled reason to think the ‘apostasy of the Church’ did not begin for five hundred years than there is to think it began in the first century.
The problem here is that Mohler’s position faces a very serious dilemma regarding the tradition to which he is appealing as the basis for “Christian orthodoxy.” On the one hand, Mohler cannot reject the tradition of the early Church, because that would make his own position fail to count as “traditional Christian orthodoxy,” and thus fail to count as “Christian,” by the very same argument he uses to claim that Mormonism is not Christian. On the other hand, Mohler cannot embrace the tradition of the early Church, because, as shown above, in many important ways that tradition is incompatible with his own Baptist theology.
How does Mohler deal with this dilemma? He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian
Christology.
This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it.
** For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.**
The problem with the pick-and-choose approach is that it is entirely ad hoc insofar as one picks and chooses from among Church Fathers and councils only those statements one agrees with, to be ‘authoritative.’The result is that Mohler identifies tradition in the same way that an archer might paint a target around an arrow he has already shot into a wall.
So the dilemma is this: either he makes an ad hoc appeal to tradition, and thus commits the fallacy of special pleading, or he gives up his appeal to tradition, and thereby loses that by which he tries to draw a principled distinction between the methodologies whereby Baptists and Mormons determine whether particular traditions are in line with Scripture or are ungodly accretions.
A further and particularly significant implication of this ad hoc approach to the tradition is that it undermines the basis for believing the canon of the Bible to be correct. If the Church erred in so many doctrines and practices, then we have no basis for believing that the Church got the canon right. It would be ad hoc to trust that the Church got the canon right while believing that the Church got so many other things wrong during that same period of time.9
In that case we cannot justifiably use our interpretation of Scripture to determine which traditions agree with our interpretation and which traditions do not, because we do not know which books are Scripture. Nor, for the same reason, can we use our interpretation of Scripture to determine which books of the Bible belong there, because that would be to assume at the outset precisely what we do not know, i.e., the canon. As a result, those who claim that the Church deviated from orthodoxy at an early point in history, and use Scripture to show this, undermine the very basis for their assurance that the book they hold in their hand is canonically inerrant. They must either turn to critical scholarship, or resort to some internal voice that they perceive to be from the Holy Spirit, in order to verify the canon, before they can use the canon to evaluate the tradition of the early Church.
P
pablope
Guest
calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/
Given the Gnostic (anti-sacramental) conception of the Church, none of the biblical promises concerning the Church apply to the Catholic Church. These include not only Christ’s aforementioned promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church,13 but also that He will be with her even to the end of the age,14 that the Holy Spirit will guide her into all truth,15 and that the Church is built upon a rock and cannot be washed away.16. In the Old Testament the prophets looked forward to the Church age. From their writings we see that the Church enjoys an everlasting covenant that cannot be revoked,17 that the Church is everlasting and indestructible,18 and that David’s throne will exist for all time.19 For all these reasons, the Apostle Paul teaches that the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”20 But given the gnostic conception of the Church, these promises do not apply to the Church in relation to her visible unified hierarchy; they apply instead to some invisible entity to which all Christians are spiritually joined through faith.
Furthermore, given this conception of the Church as something in itself invisible, being excommunicated from the Catholic Church is no more reason to believe that you have been separated from the Church Christ founded than it is to believe that you are the continuation of the Church Christ founded, and that the Catholic Church is the apostate ‘schism from’ the Church Christ founded. This is why heresies and schisms must either maintain that the Church Christ founded is invisible, or, if they acknowledge that the Church is essentially a visibly unified hierarchical body, they must claim to have more ecclesial authority than does the episcopal successor of St. Peter.
The distinction between these two kinds of faith follows from the distinction between the Gnostic conception of the Church and the biblical conception of the Church as a living and hierarchically unified Body. When we come to see “the act of faith in Christ and the act of faith in the Church [as] one act of faith,” then we have to let go of ecclesial deism. In that respect ecclesial deism is a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion,’ a form of unbelief, a stance of doubt, and hence a defect in faith. But that does not mean that everyone holding some form of ecclesial deism is doing so because he or she consciously or culpably distrusts Christ. It may simply be because this person does not recognize or grasp what it is that Christ founded when He founded His Church. In the history of the Church, we can find this stance of doubt in the early heresies, including the Montanists, Novatians, and Donatists. Their distrust expressed itself as distrusting the legitimate shepherds whom Christ had appointed to feed and govern His flock. But the Catholic exercises faith in Christ by trusting and serving those shepherds whom Christ has appointed and authorized to govern in His name. In doing so, the Catholic is not replacing faith in Christ with faith in the Church, but trusting in Christ precisely by and through trusting Christ’s Church.
Not only is succession the rule for appointing leaders in the Church, it is also the rule and pattern for accepting Church leaders. The second century Church faced this very challenge from Gnostics who claimed to have the true knowledge of the gospel. But the Church responded to this challenge by appealing to apostolic succession. St. Irenaeus refers to the Apostolic Tradition which is preserved by apostolic succession.42 These heretics, says St. Irenaeus, consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. St. Irenaeus explains how the Apostolic Tradition was to be found, to whom it was entrusted, and how it was preserved:
T
Telestia
Guest
Of course not. The Bible speaks to me via the workings of the Holy Spirit that dwells in me, my helper, who works in us all things to the good, for all true Christians who believe God. Jesus promised us we would receive the Holy Spirit, our helper, God in me.
Jn 16:5-15
"But now I am going to Him who sent Me; and none of you asks Me, ’ Where are You going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.
12 "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.
And,
1 Co 12:1-13
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware. You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.
12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
NASU
And Romans 8
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
What you have mistakenly introduced about the assumption “death” is false.
The assumption deals with Mary’s body and soul taken up to heaven, it is not dealing directly with a death. The assumption is not dealing with “death” as you falsely claim.
In order for death to occurr the soul is separated from the body, the CCC never relates the assumption as this taking place, only that God assumed Mary’s body and soul into heaven.
You are mistakenly trying to “REDEFINE” the assumption of Mary into heaven body and soul as a mortal death. When the assumption never touches on this subject. If you stick to the “tradition” and the revelation of the Catholic Church, it will keep you from trying to re-invent something that is not there.
If you seek the assumption of Mary practiced from Sacred Tradition, You don’t have to look no further than the “Liturgies”. All valid Catholic liturgies have a special place of Mary in heaven. This liturgical revelation has never been contested.
Peace be with you
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
The Catholic Church nor any Church council never defined Mary as suffering a mortal death of corruption.
What the ECF’s write never defines a mortal death of corruption as Hesychios mistakenly placed in medical terms defining a death.
Let us be clear here; The assumption is not dealing with a mortal death of corruption. The ECF’s never contradict the assumption in their “opinons” at the completion of Mary’s life on earth.
It should be noted that these “opinions” of the ECF’s of Mary died, are never binding on all believers. What is binding is that Mary is in heaven with her body and soul, thus the assumption of Mary, body and soul in heaven. Our Liturgical celebrations have always practiced and believed this by all the Catholic faithful.
The Word of God reveals the assumption of Mary in heaven body and soul thus the crowning.
Peace be with you
V
vsedriver
Guest
by this logic, all Evangelicals agree completely on all Biblical interpretations and therefore there is no need for multiple Evangelical churches.
What constitutes “implied”? I can argue that purgatory is implied in the Bible.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I guess he must be “misinterpreting” the feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos, which teaches very clearly that she died before being assumed. You know, the feast where Eastern Christians of the Greek and Slavic traditions sing this hymn:
In birth, you preserved your virginity; in death, you did not abandon the world, O Theotokos. As mother of life, you departed to the source of life, delivering our souls from death by your intercessions.
Mary’s death and assumption after death is tradition, as shown by the liturgical calendars of the East. The Eastern Catholics, by the way, celebrate the dormition and do believe that Mary died, because it is their tradition. If this is not a valid tradition, then why has your Vatican not corrected these Eastern Catholics yet?
Z
Zenas
Guest
No it’s not logical that all evangelicals would agree on Biblical interpretations. Look at the Constitution of the United States. After more than 200 years of jurisprudence there continues to be disputes over what it means. Even the supreme arbiters, the U.S. Supreme Court, usually divide over its meaning. Actually the amazing thing is that there is so much agreement among evangelicals.
I will assume this a serious, rather than a rhetorical, question. A thing is implied when not expressly stated, although a consideration of the surrounding circumstances would suggest to reasonable minds that the thing might exist.
Purgatory is one of the best examples of a doctrine implied from the Bible that I can think of. There are about a dozen places in scripture where purgatory is implied.
- Status